QTUM vs. SLVP
QTUM (Defiance Quantum ETF) and SLVP (iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QTUM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index, while SLVP is a Silver fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QTUM returned 28.09%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for SLVP. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QTUM charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for SLVP.
Performance
QTUM vs. SLVP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QTUM achieves a 47.39% return, which is significantly higher than SLVP's -5.37% return.
QTUM
- 1D
- 1.22%
- 1M
- 9.88%
- YTD
- 47.39%
- 6M
- 45.72%
- 1Y
- 82.93%
- 3Y*
- 48.15%
- 5Y*
- 28.09%
- 10Y*
- —
SLVP
- 1D
- 3.38%
- 1M
- -21.72%
- YTD
- -5.37%
- 6M
- -0.60%
- 1Y
- 83.53%
- 3Y*
- 48.97%
- 5Y*
- 14.15%
- 10Y*
- 12.67%
QTUM vs. SLVP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF | 47.39% | 36.65% | 50.54% | 39.86% | -28.80% | 35.18% | 42.05% | 47.99% | -19.44% |
SLVP iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF | -5.37% | 202.84% | 14.47% | -2.31% | -18.06% | -23.53% | 56.45% | 37.71% | 4.60% |
Correlation
The correlation between QTUM and SLVP is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2018 | 0.30 |
The correlation between QTUM and SLVP shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.40 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
QTUM vs. SLVP - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QTUM
SLVP
Technology
-
Industrials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Healthcare
-
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
QTUM
SLVP
-
Industrials
QTUM
SLVP
-
Communication Services
QTUM
SLVP
-
Consumer Cyclical
QTUM
SLVP
-
Healthcare
QTUM
SLVP
-
Basic Materials
QTUM
-
SLVP
Consumer Defensive
QTUM
-
SLVP
-
Energy
QTUM
-
SLVP
-
Financial Services
QTUM
-
SLVP
-
Real Estate
QTUM
-
SLVP
-
Utilities
QTUM
-
SLVP
-
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
QTUM vs. SLVP — Risk / Return Rank
QTUM
SLVP
QTUM vs. SLVP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) and iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP). 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.
| QTUM | SLVP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.26 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.46 | 2.21 | +3.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.77 | 5.86 | +13.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QTUM vs. SLVP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QTUM drawdown since its inception was -38.45%, smaller than the maximum SLVP drawdown of -80.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTUM and SLVP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QTUM | SLVP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.45% | -80.47% | +42.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.26% | -38.06% | +22.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.39% | -38.06% | +12.67% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.45% | -54.26% | +15.81% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -62.03% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.42% | -31.74% | +27.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.24% | -46.78% | +38.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.21% | 14.31% | -10.10% |
Volatility
QTUM vs. SLVP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) is 14.18%, while iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP) has a volatility of 19.61%. This indicates that QTUM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLVP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QTUM | SLVP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.18% | 19.61% | -5.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.17% | 45.17% | -22.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.39% | 54.53% | -26.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 26.99% | 43.15% | -16.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.40% | 42.45% | -15.05% |
QTUM vs. SLVP - Expense Ratio Comparison
QTUM has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than SLVP's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
QTUM vs. SLVP - Dividend Comparison
QTUM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than SLVP's 1.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF | 0.73% | 1.01% | 0.61% | 0.81% | 1.46% | 0.48% | 0.42% | 0.61% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SLVP iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF | 1.88% | 1.78% | 1.05% | 0.88% | 0.63% | 1.63% | 2.39% | 2.03% | 1.28% | 0.85% | 2.32% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QTUM and SLVP have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SLVP has higher volatility (19.61%) compared to QTUM (14.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTUM dropped -38.45% vs SLVP's -80.47%.
On 5-year performance, QTUM leads with 28.09% vs 14.15% for SLVP. On fees, SLVP is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, QTUM has been the lower-risk option at 14.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QTUM has performed better with a 28.09% return vs 14.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SLVP is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for QTUM.
SLVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.88%, compared with 0.73% for QTUM.
QTUM is categorized as Technology Equities, while SLVP is Silver. QTUM tracks BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index, while SLVP tracks MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index. They also come from different issuers: Defiance and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for QTUM and 0.39% for SLVP.
QTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 1.54), 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.
Find the right allocation for QTUM and SLVP
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