SI=F vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

SI=F (Silver Futures) is an asset, while GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) is Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

SI=F vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Silver Futures (SI=F) and abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

SI=F

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLTR

• 1D: 1.12%
• 1M: -16.17%
• YTD: -12.36%
• 6M: -15.32%
• 1Y: 29.48%
• 3Y*: 27.25%
• 5Y*: 13.42%
• 10Y*: 10.84%

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

SI=F vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SI=F Silver Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.09%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-12.36%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-1.21%

Correlation

The correlation between SI=F and GLTR is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	0.15

Return for Risk

SI=F vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SI=F

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 22
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 28
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

SI=F vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Silver Futures (SI=F) and abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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.

	SI=F	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.76	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.11	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.17	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	0.79	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	1.96	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	SI=F	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-55.70%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-37.52%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-37.52%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.52%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-36.82%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-28.83%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	15.05%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	SI=F	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.83%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	36.71%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	39.05%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	23.99%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	20.73%	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SI=F and GLTR in my portfolio?

SI=F and GLTR have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.