SIL vs SILJ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SIL and SILJ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SIL is Global X - Silver Miners ETF, while SILJ is Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF. SILJ is broader by holdings count, with 70 positions versus 42 for SIL. SIL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SIL ahead on AIQ Score, 49 versus 48.
What is the main difference between SIL and SILJ?
SIL and SILJ both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 54% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.69% |
| Holdings | 42 | 70 |
| Top-10 concentration | 76.2% | 60% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.25% | 2.19% |
| Average volume | 1,091,442 | 3,884,853 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +3.6% | -4% |
| YTD return | -2.6% | -8.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +16.3% | +14.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 55% | 59.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -39.5% | -41.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -47.9% | -48.3% |
| Beta | 2.25 | 2.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | 0.37 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 49/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 31/100 | 29/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 46/100 | 35/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Silver Miners ETF vs Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF
SIL leads
SIL leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support SIL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Silver Miners ETF
Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SIL over SILJ, 49 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. SIL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while SILJ holds the stronger quality profile. SIL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SIL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SIL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Silver Miners ETF and Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SIL vs SILJ: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | SIL | SILJ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.69% | SIL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 42 | 70 | SILJ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 76.2% | 60% | SILJ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.25% | 2.19% | SILJ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -47.9% | -48.3% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 55% | 59.8% | SIL |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare SIL and SILJ 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 Resilience46 vs 35SIL +11
- Quality65 vs 70SILJ +5
- Momentum31 vs 29Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor SIL. SIL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; SILJ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SIL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SIL and SILJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SIL (Global X - Silver Miners ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
SILJ (Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | SIL | SILJ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.69% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 42 | 70 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,091,442 | 3,884,853 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 55% | 59.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -39.5% | -41.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | 0.27 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.25 | 2.51 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
SIL and SILJ share 53.85% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings.
8 holdings are unique to SIL, and 39 holdings are unique to SILJ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SIL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 76.15% of the fund, against 59.97% for SILJ (42 holdings vs 70). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | SIL | SILJ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDECOEUR MINING INC | 11.16% | 10.69% | 10.69% |
| WPMWHEATON PRECIOUS METALS CORP | 24.16% | 5.88% | 5.88% |
| HLHecla Mining Co | 4.96% | 10.85% | 4.96% |
| AGFirst Majestic Silver Corp | 4.45% | 10.08% | 4.45% |
| SSRMSSR Mining Inc | 4.16% | 4.74% | 4.16% |
| BVNCIA DE MINAS BUENAVENTUR-ADR | 3.59% | 3.1% | 3.1% |
| PAASPAN AMERICAN SILVER CORP | 11.19% | 2.93% | 2.93% |
| OROR ROYALTIES INC | 3.85% | 2.62% | 2.62% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SIL adds that SILJ doesn’t
| Holding | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| WPMWHEATON PRECIOUS METALS CORP | 24.16% | 5.88% |
| PAASPAN AMERICAN SILVER CORP | 11.19% | 2.93% |
| PE&OLES.MXINDUSTRIAS PENOLES SAB DE CV | 4.62% | 0.53% |
| FRES.LFRESNILLO PLC | 4.02% | 0.9% |
| DSV.TODISCOVERY MINING LTD | 3.29% | Not held |
| 010130.KSKOREA ZINC CO LTD | 2.32% | Not held |
What SILJ adds that SIL doesn’t
| Holding | SILJ | SIL |
|---|---|---|
| HLHecla Mining Co | 10.85% | 4.96% |
| AGFirst Majestic Silver Corp | 10.08% | 4.45% |
| BOL.STBoliden AB | 4.05% | Not held |
| EXKEndeavour Silver Corp | 3.68% | 1.72% |
| PPTAPerpetua Resources Corp | 3.12% | Not held |
| SVMSilvercorp Metals Inc | 2.97% | 1.44% |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SIL. 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 | 49 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SIL | Price vs 50-day -11.4% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day -10.8% vs -15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SIL | Risk Resilience 46 vs 35 |
| 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 SIL and SILJ 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)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 SIL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SIL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SIL +1
- 49 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- SIL +1
- 46 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- SIL +1
- 67 vs 66
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when SILJ 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SIL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.66%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SILJ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.63%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SIL leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.01%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1SILJ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to SIL's edge.
- 2SILJ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SIL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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.
Performance
SIL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.2% | -3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.4% | -18.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.2% | -1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.6% | -17.2% |
| Year to date | -2.6% | -8.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.6% | -4% |
Technicals
SIL has the stronger structure| Metric | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.4 | 35.4 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.4% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.8% | -15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.8% | 41.7% |
Risk
SIL is the more resilient| Metric | SIL | SILJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.25 | 2.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | 0.37 |
| Max drawdown | -39.5% | -41.1% |
| Current drawdown | -31% | -37.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 55% | 59.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SIL and SILJ?
SIL and SILJ both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 100% and 100% of assets, and 54% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SIL and SILJ overlap?
SIL and SILJ share 53.85% of their weighted exposure across 30 common holdings. 8 holdings are unique to SIL, and 39 holdings are unique to SILJ. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SIL or SILJ?
SILJ holds more positions: 70 versus 42 for SIL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SIL has the lower expense ratio, 0.65% a year against 0.69% for SILJ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SILJ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.19% against 1.25% for SIL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SILJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 59.8% annualized against 55% for SIL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -47.9% for SIL and -48.3% for SILJ.
Compare SIL and SILJ with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.