PHYS vs SIL ETF Comparison
Compare PHYS and SIL across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between PHYS and SIL?
PHYS is Sprott Physical Gold Trust, while SIL is Global X - Silver Miners ETF. PHYS is tied to its stated fund strategy; SIL is tied to Equity. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PHYS ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 63.
| Metric | PHYS | SIL | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | - | 0.65% | Fund |
| Assets under management | - | $5.4B | Fund |
| Holdings | - | 33 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | - | 134.4% | Fund |
| Average volume | - | 1,102,721 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | - | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +24.7% | +69.5% | Performance |
| YTD return | +2.6% | +21.4% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 55.3% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -39.5% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.74 | 2.15 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.13 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 1.54 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 63/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 73/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 56/100 | 39/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sprott Physical Gold Trust vs Global X - Silver Miners ETF
PHYS leads
PHYS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support PHYS.
Sprott Physical Gold Trust
Global X - Silver Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PHYS over SIL, 64 versus 63 as of Sep 5, 2026. PHYS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SIL holds the stronger momentum profile. PHYS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PHYS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PHYS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sprott Physical Gold Trust and Global X - Silver Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare PHYS and SIL against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience15%56 vs 39PHYS +17
- Momentum25%58 vs 73SIL +15
- Quality30%72 vs 67PHYS +5
1 of 3 evidence groups favor PHYS. PHYS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; SIL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
PHYS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PHYS and SIL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PHYS (Sprott Physical Gold Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SIL (Global X - Silver Miners ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.1% against 27.7%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
PHYSPHYS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SILSIL on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
PHYSPHYS on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | PHYS | SIL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | — | 0.65% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | — | $5.4B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | — | 39 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | — | 1,102,721 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 55.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -39.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.13 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.74 | 2.15 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, PHYS or SIL?
Use holdings count, top-10 concentration and sector exposure together; the current dataset does not show a decisive holdings-count edge.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SIL has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PHYS has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
PHYS currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 64 to 63.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PHYS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 64 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SIL | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 18.3%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs 13.3% |
| Risk Resilience | PHYS | Risk Resilience 56 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PHYS and SIL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on PHYS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3PHYS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PHYS +1
- 64 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- PHYS +2
- 69 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- PHYS +3
- 53 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jun 1 when PHYS moved ahead of SIL.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.56%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.91%)
SIL is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.83%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.04%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1SIL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHYS's edge.
- 2SIL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PHYS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | PHYS | SIL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -100.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 220.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 4.8% | — |
| Operating margin | 4.9% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0 | — |
Performance
SIL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PHYS | SIL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.2% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.2% | 21.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.2% | 14.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12.3% | -1% |
| Year to date | 2.6% | 21.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.7% | 69.5% |
Technicals
SIL has the stronger structure| Metric | PHYS | SIL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.4 | 64.7 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 31.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 18.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | 13.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.7% | 54.1% |
Risk
PHYS is the more resilient| Metric | PHYS | SIL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 2.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -39.5% |
| Current drawdown | -17.2% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 55.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PHYS or SIL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PHYS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 64 against SIL's 63. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. SIL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is PHYS or SIL the better buy right now?
PHYS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PHYS over SIL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PHYS leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; SIL leads Momentum by 15 points; PHYS leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, PHYS or SIL?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, PHYS or SIL?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, PHYS or SIL?
SIL on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, PHYS or SIL?
PHYS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PHYS on Risk Resilience, by 17 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PHYS more profitable than SIL?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is PHYS's lead over SIL getting stronger or weaker?
PHYS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-01, when PHYS moved ahead of SIL.
What would change the PHYS vs SIL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SIL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHYS's edge; SIL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PHYS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about PHYS and SIL?
PHYS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. SIL: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on PHYS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SIL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare PHYS and SIL with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.