ISVBF vs. SLV

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and SLV (iShares Silver Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - ISVBF is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while SLV is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -2.48%/yr vs 18.24%/yr for SLV. Their 0.13 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for SLV.

Performance

ISVBF vs. SLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -6.75% return, which is significantly higher than SLV's -16.42% return.

ISVBF

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: 9.06%
• 6M: -8.63%
• YTD: -6.75%
• 1Y: -0.99%
• 3Y*: 8.45%
• 5Y*: -2.48%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -4.43%

SLV

• 1D: 2.63%
• 1M: -2.14%
• 6M: -30.04%
• YTD: -16.42%
• 1Y: 58.45%
• 3Y*: 35.46%
• 5Y*: 18.24%
• 10Y*: 11.15%
• ALL TIME*: 7.30%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	$147.49K	$255.95K	$315.23K
SLV iShares Silver Trust	$721.48M	$758.11M	$1.24B

ISVBF vs. SLV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-6.75%	30.64%	18.96%	-9.28%	-23.01%	-22.12%
SLV iShares Silver Trust	-16.42%	144.66%	20.89%	-1.09%	2.37%	-12.45%

Correlation

The correlation between ISVBF and SLV is 0.19, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.17
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021	0.13

Return for Risk

ISVBF vs. SLV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 10
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 10
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 9

SLV

SLV Risk / Return Rank: 33
SLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
SLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
SLV Omega Ratio Rank: 41
SLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
SLV Martin Ratio Rank: 25

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ISVBF vs. SLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) 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.

	ISVBF	SLV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	0.96	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.18	1.39	-1.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.22	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	1.12	-1.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	2.12	-2.21

ISVBF vs. SLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISVBF Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the SLV Sharpe Ratio of 0.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISVBF 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.

Drawdowns

ISVBF vs. SLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, smaller than the maximum SLV drawdown of -76.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and SLV.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISVBF	SLV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.78%	-76.28%	+22.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.14%	-52.28%	+28.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.14%	-52.28%	+28.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.06%	-52.28%	+6.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-52.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.42%	-49.02%	+24.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.57%	-44.68%	+12.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.23%	27.67%	-16.44%

Volatility

ISVBF vs. SLV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) is 6.46%, while iShares Silver Trust (SLV) has a volatility of 11.01%. This indicates that ISVBF 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.

Volatility by Period

	ISVBF	SLV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	11.01%	-4.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.45%	44.25%	-17.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.60%	61.39%	-29.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.08%	37.00%	-6.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.06%	32.22%	-2.16%

ISVBF vs. SLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than SLV's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISVBF vs. SLV - Dividend Comparison

Neither ISVBF nor SLV has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISVBF and SLV in my portfolio?

ISVBF and SLV have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISVBF or SLV?

SLV has higher volatility (11.01%) compared to ISVBF (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs SLV's -76.28%.

Which ETF is better, ISVBF or SLV?

On 5-year performance, SLV leads with 18.24% vs -2.48% for ISVBF. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISVBF or SLV?

Over the 5-year period, SLV has performed better with a 18.24% return vs -2.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISVBF or SLV?

ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for SLV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ISVBF or SLV?

ISVBF and SLV have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between ISVBF and SLV?

ISVBF is categorized as China Equities, while SLV is Silver. ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while SLV tracks LBMA Silver Price. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.50% for SLV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.96 vs -0.03), 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.