HCOW vs. SILJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HCOW (Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF) and SILJ (Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Amplify, while SILJ is a Silver fund tracking the Nasdaq Junior Silver Miners Index. HCOW is actively managed, while SILJ is passively managed. Over the past year, HCOW returned 21.68% vs 111.95% for SILJ. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HCOW charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for SILJ.

Performance

HCOW vs. SILJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HCOW achieves a 4.48% return, which is significantly lower than SILJ's 6.61% return.

HCOW

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 3.03%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 6M: 4.26%
• 1Y: 21.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SILJ

• 1D: -5.24%
• 1M: 2.57%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 16.40%
• 1Y: 111.95%
• 3Y*: 47.77%
• 5Y*: 13.13%
• 10Y*: 10.08%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HCOW vs. SILJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HCOW Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF	4.48%	5.76%	7.63%	6.44%
SILJ Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF	6.61%	183.89%	6.39%	9.54%

Correlation

The correlation between HCOW and SILJ is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2023	0.27

HCOW vs. SILJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HCOW	SILJ
Technology	21.0%	-
Industrials	18.7%	-
Financial Services	17.2%	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	-
Energy	8.2%	-
Healthcare	8.0%	-
Basic Materials	6.0%	99.8%
Communication Services	4.7%	0.0%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	0.2%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

HCOW vs. SILJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

HCOW

HCOW Risk / Return Rank: 53
HCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
HCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
HCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 44
HCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
HCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 62

SILJ

SILJ Risk / Return Rank: 54
SILJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
SILJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
SILJ Omega Ratio Rank: 51
SILJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
SILJ Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

HCOW vs. SILJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ). 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.

	HCOW	SILJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	2.05	-0.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.35	2.35	0.00
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.32	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	3.24	+0.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	7.99	+3.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HCOW vs. SILJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the SILJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HCOW and SILJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HCOW	SILJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	2.05	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.30	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.52	0.09	+0.43

Drawdowns

HCOW vs. SILJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HCOW drawdown since its inception was -24.15%, smaller than the maximum SILJ drawdown of -79.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HCOW and SILJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	HCOW	SILJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.15%	-79.04%	+54.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.29%	-34.71%	+28.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-70.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-26.80%	+26.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.88%	-41.43%	+36.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.95%	14.06%	-12.11%

Volatility

HCOW vs. SILJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF (HCOW) is 3.63%, while Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ) has a volatility of 18.69%. This indicates that HCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SILJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HCOW	SILJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.63%	18.69%	-15.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.74%	45.24%	-36.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.89%	54.90%	-41.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.60%	44.35%	-26.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.60%	46.24%	-28.64%

HCOW vs. SILJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

HCOW has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than SILJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

HCOW vs. SILJ - Dividend Comparison

HCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.73%, more than SILJ's 1.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HCOW Amplify Cash Flow High Income ETF	11.73%	10.88%	8.13%	1.99%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SILJ Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF	1.88%	2.00%	7.26%	0.01%	0.05%	0.36%	1.23%	1.45%	1.66%	0.00%	0.52%	2.46%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HCOW and SILJ in my portfolio?

HCOW and SILJ have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HCOW or SILJ?

SILJ has higher volatility (18.69%) compared to HCOW (3.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HCOW dropped -24.15% vs SILJ's -79.04%.

Which ETF is better, HCOW or SILJ?

On 1-year performance, SILJ leads with 111.95% vs 21.68% for HCOW. On fees, HCOW is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, HCOW has been the lower-risk option at 3.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HCOW or SILJ?

Over the 1-year period, SILJ has performed better with a 111.95% return vs 21.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HCOW or SILJ?

HCOW is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for SILJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HCOW or SILJ?

HCOW has the higher dividend yield at 11.73%, compared with 1.88% for SILJ.

What is the main difference between HCOW and SILJ?

HCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while SILJ is Silver. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for HCOW and 0.69% for SILJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SILJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.57), 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.