SLVP vs. FBL

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

SLVP (iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF) and FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SLVP is a Silver fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index, while FBL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares. SLVP is passively managed, while FBL is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SLVP returned 48.97%/yr vs 25.43%/yr for FBL. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SLVP charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for FBL.

Performance

SLVP vs. FBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SLVP achieves a -5.37% return, which is significantly higher than FBL's -34.05% return.

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%

FBL

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: -17.09%
• YTD: -34.05%
• 6M: -31.11%
• 1Y: -46.30%
• 3Y*: 25.43%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SLVP vs. FBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SLVP iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF	-5.37%	202.84%	14.47%	-2.31%	-1.50%
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	-34.05%	0.50%	112.72%	341.59%	-1.38%

Correlation

The correlation between SLVP and FBL is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2022	0.15

SLVP vs. FBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SLVP	FBL
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	66.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SLVP vs. FBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

SLVP

SLVP Risk / Return Rank: 46
SLVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
SLVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
SLVP Omega Ratio Rank: 46
SLVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
SLVP Martin Ratio Rank: 41

FBL

FBL Risk / Return Rank: 4
FBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
FBL Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FBL Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

SLVP vs. FBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). 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.

	SLVP	FBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	-0.65	+2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.95	-0.73	+2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	0.91	+0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.21	-0.76	+2.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	-1.36	+7.22

SLVP vs. FBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SLVP Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the FBL Sharpe Ratio of -0.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SLVP and FBL, 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

SLVP vs. FBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SLVP drawdown since its inception was -80.47%, which is greater than FBL's maximum drawdown of -61.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SLVP and FBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	SLVP	FBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-80.47%	-61.15%	-19.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-38.06%	-61.03%	+22.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-38.06%	-61.15%	+23.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-54.26%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.74%	-57.26%	+25.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-46.78%	-16.70%	-30.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.31%	33.98%	-19.67%

Volatility

SLVP vs. FBL - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) have volatilities of 19.61% and 20.60%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SLVP	FBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.61%	20.60%	-0.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.17%	53.92%	-8.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.53%	71.02%	-16.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.15%	71.08%	-27.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.45%	71.08%	-28.63%

SLVP vs. FBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

SLVP has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than FBL's 1.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

SLVP vs. FBL - Dividend Comparison

SLVP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, less than FBL's 3.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	3.14%	2.07%	0.00%	51.58%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both SLVP and FBL in my portfolio?

SLVP and FBL 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.

Which is riskier, SLVP or FBL?

FBL has higher volatility (20.60%) compared to SLVP (19.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SLVP dropped -80.47% vs FBL's -61.15%.

Which ETF is better, SLVP or FBL?

On 3-year performance, SLVP leads with 48.97% vs 25.43% for FBL. On fees, SLVP is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, SLVP has been the lower-risk option at 19.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SLVP or FBL?

Over the 3-year period, SLVP has performed better with a 48.97% return vs 25.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SLVP or FBL?

SLVP is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for FBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SLVP or FBL?

FBL has the higher dividend yield at 3.14%, compared with 1.88% for SLVP.

What is the main difference between SLVP and FBL?

SLVP is categorized as Silver, while FBL is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for SLVP and 1.15% for FBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SLVP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs -0.65), 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.