Over the past year the iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (NYSEMKT:SLVP) delivered a much higher one-year total return than the Sprott Gold Miners ETF (NYSEMKT:SGDM).
The difference is not small. SLVP offers a 1.7% dividend yield and charges a 0.39% expense ratio; SGDM pays a 1.0% yield and carries a 0.50% expense ratio. SLVP holds 36 stocks and sits at 100% basic materials exposure. SGDM holds 39 positions and has nearly 12 years of trading history.
Those portfolio tilts explain most of the gap. SLVP strictly targets companies engaged in silver exploration or metals mining and lists Hecla Mining and Fresnillo Plc among its top holdings. SGDM is a gold miners fund focused on companies from the U.S. and Canada; its largest positions include Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.
Performance and risk metrics tell the rest of the story. Over the trailing 12 months SLVP’s one‑year total return was markedly higher than SGDM’s. At the same time, SGDM has shown a milder historical drawdown and a lower beta than SLVP, signaling that SGDM has delivered steadier returns through declines while SLVP moved more sharply with the market and the underlying metal.
That contrast matters now because silver has outperformed gold over the past year. Silver also carries more volatility than gold, so a portfolio tilt toward silver miners has amplified returns while also amplifying swings. The metal exposure difference between these two funds is therefore more consequential today than it would be in a year of muted metal-price divergence.
Both ETFs concentrate in the basic materials sector and should be viewed as tilts rather than broad, standalone holdings for most portfolios. SLVP’s focused silver exposure and higher dividend give it an appeal for investors who want to lean into the recent silver rally. SGDM’s longer track record, broader gold-miner focus and lower volatility make it a cleaner option for investors prioritizing steadiness over maximum upside from a metal-specific move.
There is a trade-off built into the numbers: SLVP has the cheaper fee and the higher yield, and it captured more of the recent upside; SGDM has the milder drawdowns and lower beta, and it may be less likely to amplify a sudden reversal in metal prices. Investors choosing between them are effectively deciding whether they prefer a silver tilt with higher short‑term return potential and greater swings, or a gold-miners tilt with historically softer declines.
For investors inclined to back silver’s momentum, SLVP’s structure and holdings suggest it will continue to be the more responsive vehicle; for those seeking a steadier exposure to precious-metal miners, SGDM’s lower volatility and multiyear track record make it the more conservative choice. The facts point to one clear conclusion: SLVP outperformed SGDM over the past year because it leans into silver, but that outperformance has come with higher volatility and deeper drawdowns.
