SIL vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

SIL (Global X Silver Miners ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - SIL is a Silver fund tracking the Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return Index, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SIL returned 12.56%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SIL charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

SIL vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIL achieves a -2.20% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 6.79% return.

SIL

• 1D: 3.27%
• 1M: -10.83%
• YTD: -2.20%
• 6M: 0.10%
• 1Y: 69.43%
• 3Y*: 46.50%
• 5Y*: 12.56%
• 10Y*: 9.80%

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

SIL vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	-2.20%	166.16%	14.62%	1.31%	-22.83%	-18.35%	40.30%	13.58%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between SIL and FNGS is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.29

SIL vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SIL	FNGS
Basic Materials	99.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.2%	-
Communication Services	-	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.6%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	63.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SIL vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIL

SIL Risk / Return Rank: 41
SIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
SIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
SIL Omega Ratio Rank: 43
SIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
SIL Martin Ratio Rank: 37

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

SIL vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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.

	SIL	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	0.79	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	1.19	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.15	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	0.75	+1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.09	2.12	+2.97

SIL vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIL Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIL and FNGS, 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

SIL vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIL drawdown since its inception was -82.99%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIL and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIL	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-82.99%	-48.98%	-34.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.08%	-22.93%	-14.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.08%	-26.77%	-10.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.77%	-48.98%	-3.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.80%	-9.63%	-21.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-51.40%	-10.85%	-40.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.90%	8.05%	+5.85%

Volatility

SIL vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) has a higher volatility of 19.29% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 8.74%. This indicates that SIL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIL	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.29%	8.74%	+10.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	43.57%	17.19%	+26.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.69%	21.65%	+30.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.64%	30.10%	+9.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.81%	31.17%	+8.64%

SIL vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIL has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIL vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

SIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	1.21%	1.18%	2.40%	0.59%	0.48%	1.59%	1.92%	1.53%	1.21%	0.02%	3.34%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SIL and FNGS in my portfolio?

SIL and FNGS have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SIL or FNGS?

SIL has higher volatility (19.29%) compared to FNGS (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIL dropped -82.99% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, SIL or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 12.56% for SIL. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 8.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIL or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 12.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIL or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SIL or FNGS?

SIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between SIL and FNGS?

SIL is categorized as Silver, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. SIL tracks Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SIL and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs 0.79), 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.