PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FALN vs. SLV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FALN vs. SLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FALN achieves a 2.24% return, which is significantly higher than SLV's -13.49% return. Over the past 10 years, FALN has underperformed SLV with an annualized return of 6.60%, while SLV has yielded a comparatively higher 12.68% annualized return.


FALN

1D
0.00%
1M
1.07%
YTD
2.24%
6M
2.42%
1Y
7.88%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
3.74%
10Y*
6.60%

SLV

1D
-5.40%
1M
-18.48%
YTD
-13.49%
6M
-14.05%
1Y
69.08%
3Y*
39.38%
5Y*
18.31%
10Y*
12.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FALN vs. SLV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FALN
iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF
2.24%8.92%7.68%13.47%-13.79%5.40%14.85%17.42%-4.97%8.70%
SLV
iShares Silver Trust
-13.49%144.66%20.89%-1.09%2.37%-12.45%47.30%14.88%-9.19%5.82%

Correlation

The correlation between FALN and SLV is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.24

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.23

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2016

0.23

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FALN vs. SLV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FALN
FALN Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank

SLV
SLV Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
SLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
SLV Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
SLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
SLV Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FALN vs. SLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


FALNSLVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.25

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.00

1.47

+0.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.32

3.16

+5.16

FALN vs. SLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FALN Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is higher than the SLV Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FALN and SLV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FALN vs. SLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FALN drawdown since its inception was -29.22%, smaller than the maximum SLV drawdown of -76.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FALN and SLV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FALNSLVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.22%

-76.28%

+47.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.96%

-47.23%

+43.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.92%

-47.23%

+41.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.78%

-47.23%

+28.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-29.22%

-47.23%

+18.01%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-47.23%

+47.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.31%

-44.65%

+41.34%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.95%

21.91%

-20.96%

Volatility

FALN vs. SLV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) is 1.18%, while iShares Silver Trust (SLV) has a volatility of 14.34%. This indicates that FALN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FALNSLVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.18%

14.34%

-13.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.72%

59.27%

-55.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.60%

60.33%

-55.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.33%

36.59%

-29.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.92%

32.09%

-23.17%

FALN vs. SLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FALN has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than SLV's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

FALN vs. SLV - Dividend Comparison

FALN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.42%, while SLV has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
FALN
iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF
6.42%6.31%6.24%5.37%5.08%3.40%5.14%5.35%5.97%6.98%3.55%
SLV
iShares Silver Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


FALN and SLV have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SLV has higher volatility (14.34%) compared to FALN (1.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FALN dropped -29.22% vs SLV's -76.28%.

On 10-year performance, SLV leads with 12.68% vs 6.60% for FALN. On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FALN has been the lower-risk option at 1.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SLV has performed better with a 12.68% return vs 6.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for SLV.

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.42%, compared with 0.00% for SLV.

FALN is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while SLV is Silver. FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index, while SLV tracks LBMA Silver Price. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FALN and 0.50% for SLV.

FALN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.15), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FALN and SLV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer