SIVR vs UNG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SIVR and UNG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SIVR is abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. SIVR has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has UNG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 50.
| Metric | SIVR | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.3% | 1.17% |
| Holdings | 1 | 16 |
| Average volume | 1,394,611 | 15,240,597 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.7% | -9.3% |
| YTD return | -18.9% | -14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +18.4% | -33.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.9% | 58.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -52.4% | -43% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -52.4% | -92.9% |
| Beta | 1.95 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 0.03 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 33/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 46/100 | 42/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
UNG leads
UNG leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support UNG, and its lead is narrowing.
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over SIVR, 58 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while SIVR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UNG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. UNG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF and United States Natural Gas Fund LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SIVR vs UNG: 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 | SIVR | UNG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.3% | 1.17% | SIVR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -52.4% | -92.9% | SIVR |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.9% | 58.7% | UNG |
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
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare SIVR and UNG 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.
- Momentum33 vs 57UNG +24
- Risk Resilience46 vs 42SIVR +4
- Quality67 vs 67Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in momentum; SIVR keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
UNG's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SIVR and UNG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
SIVR (abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | SIVR | UNG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.3% | 1.17% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1 | 16 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,394,611 | 15,240,597 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.9% | 58.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -52.4% | -43% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.95 | -0.69 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNG | 50 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | UNG | Price vs 50-day -9.1% vs -5%; vs 200-day -20% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SIVR | Risk Resilience 46 vs 42 |
| 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 SIVR and UNG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 UNG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UNG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +8
- 50 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- UNG +10
- 47 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +11
- 47 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SIVR +10
- 65 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when UNG moved ahead of SIVR.
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 / 3 bearish
Only SIVR
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only UNG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.05%, AIQ +6 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.
- 1SIVR closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2SIVR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate UNG's advantage entirely.
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 | SIVR | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 74% |
| Gross margin | — | 0% |
| Operating margin | — | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
UNG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SIVR | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.2% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.8% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -18.9% | -14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.7% | -9.3% |
Technicals
UNG has the stronger structure| Metric | SIVR | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.3 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.1% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39% | 45.1% |
Risk
SIVR is the more resilient| Metric | SIVR | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.95 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -52.4% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -50.5% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.9% | 58.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SIVR has the lower expense ratio, 0.3% a year against 1.17% for UNG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SIVR has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.9% annualized against 58.7% for UNG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SIVR fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -52.4% against -92.9% for UNG.
Compare SIVR and UNG 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.