Performance over the past 12 months
The trailing one-year total return through April 2, 2026 shows SLVP outpacing its gold-focused counterpart. SLVP delivered a 150.6% gain, lifted by a rally in silver prices and strong earnings reports from several of its top holdings. GDX advanced 108.2% over the same period, reflecting gold’s role as a defensive asset during heightened market volatility. While both figures dwarf the S&P 500’s return for the period, the data underscore SLVP’s higher sensitivity to price swings in the underlying metal.
Risk metrics and drawdowns
Beta, a common gauge of volatility relative to the S&P 500, stands at 0.98 for SLVP and 0.66 for GDX, based on five-year monthly returns. The silver-tilted fund therefore moves almost in lockstep with the broader equity market, whereas GDX exhibits milder fluctuations. Historical drawdowns confirm that pattern. Over the past five years, SLVP’s maximum peak-to-trough decline reached 56.18%, compared with 49.79% for GDX. Investors seeking to temper portfolio volatility may find GDX’s lower beta advantageous, while those comfortable with larger swings might consider SLVP’s potentially higher upside.
Dividend policies
Both funds distribute dividends generated by the underlying miners, yet payout levels remain modest. SLVP’s trailing 12-month yield is 1.3%, double GDX’s 0.6% yield. Because mining companies often reinvest capital into exploration and development, dividend yields in the sector tend to trail those of utilities or consumer staples. Income-oriented investors may still appreciate SLVP’s relative advantage, but neither ETF should be regarded primarily as a high-yield vehicle.
Portfolio composition
GDX tracks the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index and holds 57 stocks. The three largest positions—Agnico Eagle Mines, Newmont Corp. and Barrick Mining—collectively represent a significant but not dominant slice of the fund, leaving ample room for midtier and smaller producers worldwide. Exposure spans Canada, the United States, Australia, and emerging-market jurisdictions known for sizable gold reserves.
SLVP, in contrast, owns only 36 companies and follows an index focused on firms that derive the majority of revenue from silver exploration or broader metals mining. Hecla Mining, Fresnillo and Industrias Peñoles make up more than 34% of SLVP’s assets, reflecting a higher concentration in a handful of issuers. That structure can magnify both gains and losses tied to company-specific developments such as production disruptions or regulatory changes.
Growth of capital since 2021
An initial $1,000 invested five years ago would have grown to $3,016 in GDX and $2,536 in SLVP, according to total-return calculations. The difference highlights gold’s steadier climb relative to silver, which historically exhibits more pronounced boom-and-bust cycles. However, the recent twelve-month surge in silver prices reduced the gap and may influence investor expectations for future performance.
Issuer background and index methodology
VanEck, the sponsor of GDX, has specialized in natural-resources funds for decades and employs a rules-based methodology that caps single-stock weightings to mitigate concentration risk. iShares, a division of BlackRock, manages SLVP under MSCI index rules that allow higher weights for the largest silver miners. Investors should review each provider’s prospectus to understand rebalancing schedules, sector caps and country exposure limits.
Considerations for portfolio construction
Deciding between the two ETFs involves more than choosing a preferred metal. Investors must weigh fee differentials, volatility tolerance, liquidity needs and concentration levels. Those seeking a larger, more widely traded fund with lower historical volatility may lean toward GDX. Market participants pursuing aggressive growth potential tied to silver prices and willing to accept bigger swings might find SLVP a better match.
Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission advise reviewing an ETF’s prospectus, historical performance and underlying index before committing capital, emphasizing that past returns do not guarantee future results.
Because both products invest in companies rather than physical bullion, factors such as production costs, geopolitical risks and management execution can drive share prices independently of metal spot prices. Investors focused on direct exposure to commodity prices may prefer futures-based or physically backed funds, whereas those comfortable with equity risk can use miner ETFs as leveraged plays on the underlying metals.
Ultimately, the choice between GDX and SLVP hinges on the investor’s outlook for gold versus silver, desired risk profile and time horizon. Both vehicles provide transparent, exchange-listed access to precious-metal mining industries, but differing cost structures, volatility metrics and portfolio concentrations can lead to divergent outcomes over the market cycle.
