SIVR vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF) and GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SIVR is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price ($/ozt), while GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SIVR returned 12.91%/yr vs 11.27%/yr for GLTR. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SIVR charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

SIVR vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIVR achieves a -13.39% return, which is significantly lower than GLTR's -9.21% return. Over the past 10 years, SIVR has outperformed GLTR with an annualized return of 12.91%, while GLTR has yielded a comparatively lower 11.27% annualized return.

SIVR

• 1D: -5.41%
• 1M: -18.43%
• YTD: -13.39%
• 6M: -13.95%
• 1Y: 69.45%
• 3Y*: 39.67%
• 5Y*: 18.54%
• 10Y*: 12.91%

GLTR

• 1D: -3.07%
• 1M: -12.32%
• YTD: -9.21%
• 6M: -12.60%
• 1Y: 33.31%
• 3Y*: 29.08%
• 5Y*: 14.31%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

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

SIVR vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SIVR abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF	-13.39%	145.34%	21.08%	-0.91%	2.59%	-12.33%	47.52%	15.17%	-8.96%	5.97%
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-9.21%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	-2.85%	12.94%

Correlation

The correlation between SIVR and GLTR is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2010	0.92

The correlation between SIVR and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SIVR vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIVR

SIVR Risk / Return Rank: 32
SIVR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
SIVR Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
SIVR Omega Ratio Rank: 40
SIVR Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
SIVR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 24
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GLTR 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.

SIVR vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) 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.

	SIVR	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	0.86	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.55	1.22	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.19	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	0.97	+0.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.18	2.27	+0.91

SIVR vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIVR Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is higher than the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIVR and GLTR, 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

SIVR vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIVR drawdown since its inception was -75.85%, which is greater than GLTR's maximum drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIVR and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIVR	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-75.85%	-55.70%	-20.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-47.16%	-34.55%	-12.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.16%	-34.55%	-12.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.16%	-34.55%	-12.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-47.16%	-34.55%	-12.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-47.16%	-34.55%	-12.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-47.83%	-28.83%	-19.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	21.88%	14.68%	+7.20%

Volatility

SIVR vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) has a higher volatility of 14.32% compared to abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 10.06%. This indicates that SIVR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIVR	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.32%	10.06%	+4.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	59.26%	36.51%	+22.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	60.27%	38.78%	+21.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.61%	23.90%	+12.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.12%	20.68%	+11.44%

SIVR vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIVR has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIVR vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither SIVR nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SIVR and GLTR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, SIVR and GLTR move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, SIVR or GLTR?

SIVR has higher volatility (14.32%) compared to GLTR (10.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIVR dropped -75.85% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, SIVR or GLTR?

On 10-year performance, SIVR leads with 12.91% vs 11.27% for GLTR. On fees, SIVR is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, GLTR has been the lower-risk option at 10.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIVR or GLTR?

Over the 10-year period, SIVR has performed better with a 12.91% return vs 11.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIVR or GLTR?

SIVR is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

SIVR and GLTR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between SIVR and GLTR?

SIVR is categorized as Silver, while GLTR is Precious Metals. SIVR tracks LBMA Silver Price ($/ozt), while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for SIVR and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SIVR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.16 vs 0.86), 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.