SLVP vs. QTUM
SLVP (iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF) and QTUM (Defiance Quantum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SLVP is a Silver fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index, while QTUM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SLVP returned 14.15%/yr vs 28.09%/yr for QTUM. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SLVP charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for QTUM.
Performance
SLVP vs. QTUM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SLVP achieves a -5.37% return, which is significantly lower than QTUM's 47.39% 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%
QTUM
- 1D
- 1.22%
- 1M
- 9.88%
- YTD
- 47.39%
- 6M
- 45.72%
- 1Y
- 82.93%
- 3Y*
- 48.15%
- 5Y*
- 28.09%
- 10Y*
- —
SLVP vs. QTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SLVP iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF | -5.37% | 202.84% | 14.47% | -2.31% | -18.06% | -23.53% | 56.45% | 37.71% | 4.60% |
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF | 47.39% | 36.65% | 50.54% | 39.86% | -28.80% | 35.18% | 42.05% | 47.99% | -19.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between SLVP and QTUM is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2018 | 0.30 |
The correlation between SLVP and QTUM shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.40 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
SLVP vs. QTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
SLVP
QTUM
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
SLVP
QTUM
-
Communication Services
SLVP
-
QTUM
Consumer Cyclical
SLVP
-
QTUM
Consumer Defensive
SLVP
-
QTUM
-
Energy
SLVP
-
QTUM
-
Financial Services
SLVP
-
QTUM
-
Healthcare
SLVP
-
QTUM
Industrials
SLVP
-
QTUM
Real Estate
SLVP
-
QTUM
-
Technology
SLVP
-
QTUM
Utilities
SLVP
-
QTUM
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
SLVP vs. QTUM — Risk / Return Rank
SLVP
QTUM
SLVP vs. QTUM - 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 Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM). 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 | QTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.46 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.21 | 5.46 | -3.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.86 | 19.77 | -13.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SLVP vs. QTUM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SLVP drawdown since its inception was -80.47%, which is greater than QTUM's maximum drawdown of -38.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SLVP and QTUM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SLVP | QTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -80.47% | -38.45% | -42.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -38.06% | -15.26% | -22.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.06% | -25.39% | -12.67% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -54.26% | -38.45% | -15.81% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -62.03% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.74% | -4.42% | -27.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -46.78% | -8.24% | -38.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.31% | 4.21% | +10.10% |
Volatility
SLVP vs. QTUM - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (SLVP) has a higher volatility of 19.61% compared to Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) at 14.18%. This indicates that SLVP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QTUM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SLVP | QTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 19.61% | 14.18% | +5.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 45.17% | 23.17% | +22.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 54.53% | 28.39% | +26.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.15% | 26.99% | +16.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 42.45% | 27.40% | +15.05% |
SLVP vs. QTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison
SLVP has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than QTUM's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
SLVP vs. QTUM - Dividend Comparison
SLVP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, more than QTUM's 0.73% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF | 0.73% | 1.01% | 0.61% | 0.81% | 1.46% | 0.48% | 0.42% | 0.61% | 0.21% | 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
SLVP and QTUM have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SLVP has higher volatility (19.61%) compared to QTUM (14.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SLVP dropped -80.47% vs QTUM's -38.45%.
On 5-year performance, QTUM leads with 28.09% vs 14.15% for SLVP. On fees, SLVP is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, QTUM has been the lower-risk option at 14.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QTUM has performed better with a 28.09% return vs 14.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SLVP is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for QTUM.
SLVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.88%, compared with 0.73% for QTUM.
SLVP is categorized as Silver, while QTUM is Technology Equities. SLVP tracks MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index, while QTUM tracks BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Defiance. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for SLVP and 0.40% for QTUM.
QTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 1.54), 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.
Find the right allocation for SLVP and QTUM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer