SIVR vs. GBUG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF) and GBUG (Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SIVR is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price ($/ozt), while GBUG is a Gold fund actively managed by Sprott. SIVR is passively managed, while GBUG is actively managed. Over the past year, SIVR returned 110.95% vs 61.69% for GBUG. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SIVR charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for GBUG.

Performance

SIVR vs. GBUG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) and Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF (GBUG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIVR achieves a 2.85% return, which is significantly higher than GBUG's -2.59% return.

SIVR

• 1D: -2.62%
• 1M: 0.42%
• YTD: 2.85%
• 6M: 24.90%
• 1Y: 110.95%
• 3Y*: 45.38%
• 5Y*: 21.00%
• 10Y*: 15.77%

GBUG

• 1D: -3.86%
• 1M: -0.28%
• YTD: -2.59%
• 6M: 6.69%
• 1Y: 61.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SIVR vs. GBUG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF	2.85%	115.00%
GBUG Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF	-2.59%	119.00%

Correlation

The correlation between SIVR and GBUG is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.74

The correlation between SIVR and GBUG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SIVR vs. GBUG — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIVR

SIVR Risk / Return Rank: 48
SIVR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
SIVR Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
SIVR Omega Ratio Rank: 56
SIVR Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
SIVR Martin Ratio Rank: 36

GBUG

GBUG Risk / Return Rank: 35
GBUG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
GBUG Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
GBUG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GBUG Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
GBUG Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

SIVR vs. GBUG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) and Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF (GBUG). 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.

	SIVR	GBUG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	1.30	+0.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	1.72	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.24	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	1.93	+0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.67	4.98	+0.68
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SIVR vs. GBUG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIVR Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is higher than the GBUG Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIVR and GBUG, 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

	SIVR	GBUG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.90	1.30	+0.59
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	1.71	-1.39

Drawdowns

SIVR vs. GBUG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIVR drawdown since its inception was -75.85%, which is greater than GBUG's maximum drawdown of -32.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIVR and GBUG.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIVR	GBUG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-75.85%	-32.10%	-43.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.42%	-32.10%	-10.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.42%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.25%	-26.84%	-10.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-47.85%	-7.62%	-40.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.64%	12.42%	+7.22%

Volatility

SIVR vs. GBUG - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) has a higher volatility of 16.28% compared to Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF (GBUG) at 15.39%. This indicates that SIVR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBUG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIVR	GBUG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.28%	15.39%	+0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	58.30%	39.40%	+18.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	58.84%	47.61%	+11.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.17%	47.38%	-11.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.87%	47.38%	-15.51%

SIVR vs. GBUG - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIVR has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than GBUG's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIVR vs. GBUG - Dividend Comparison

SIVR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GBUG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.60%.

Position	TTM	2025
GBUG Sprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETF	1.60%	1.56%
SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SIVR and GBUG in my portfolio?

SIVR and GBUG have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SIVR or GBUG?

SIVR has higher volatility (16.28%) compared to GBUG (15.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIVR dropped -75.85% vs GBUG's -32.10%.

Which ETF is better, SIVR or GBUG?

On 1-year performance, SIVR leads with 110.95% vs 61.69% for GBUG. On fees, SIVR is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, GBUG has been the lower-risk option at 15.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIVR or GBUG?

Over the 1-year period, SIVR has performed better with a 110.95% return vs 61.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIVR or GBUG?

SIVR is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for GBUG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SIVR or GBUG?

GBUG has the higher dividend yield at 1.60%, compared with 0.00% for SIVR.

What is the main difference between SIVR and GBUG?

SIVR is categorized as Silver, while GBUG is Gold. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for SIVR and 0.89% for GBUG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SIVR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.30), 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.