SLV vs UNG ETF Comparison
Compare SLV and UNG across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between SLV and UNG?
SLV is iShares Silver Trust, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. SLV is tied to Commodities; UNG is tied to Commodities. UNG is broader by holdings count, with 3 positions versus 0 for SLV. SLV has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | SLV | UNG | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 1.17% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $31.4B | $575M | Fund |
| Holdings | 0 | 3 | Fund |
| Average volume | 21,730,109 | 5,697,212 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 62.3% | 58.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -43% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.77 | -0.70 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -0.15 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.13 | -0.19 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 66/100 | 65/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 59/100 | 69/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 67/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Silver Trust vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
SLV leads
SLV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SLV, and its lead is narrowing.
iShares Silver Trust
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLV over UNG, 66 versus 65 as of Sep 5, 2026. SLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while UNG holds the stronger momentum profile. SLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SLV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Silver Trust and United States Natural Gas Fund LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare SLV 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.
- Risk Resilience15%67 vs 56SLV +11
- Momentum25%59 vs 69UNG +10
- Quality30%72 vs 67SLV +5
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SLV. SLV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; UNG 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: SLV moved ahead of UNG in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SLV and UNG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SLV (iShares Silver Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals.
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
SLVSLV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UNGUNG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UNGUNG on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
SLVSLV on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | SLV | UNG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 1.17% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $31.4B | $575M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 0 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 21,730,109 | 5,697,212 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.3% | 58.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -43% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -0.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | -0.70 | 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, SLV or UNG?
UNG currently has more reported holdings, with 3 positions versus 0.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SLV has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLV has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
UNG has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SLV currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 66 to 65.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SLV. 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 | 66 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | UNG | revenue growth 0% vs 0%; EPS growth -100% vs 74%; gross margin 0% vs 0%; operating margin 0% vs 0% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SLV | Price vs 50-day 7.1% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day -7.2% vs -10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SLV | Risk Resilience 67 vs 56 |
| 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 SLV and UNG 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 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3SLV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLV +1
- 66 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- SLV +3
- 60 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SLV +14
- 66 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- UNG +13
- 47 vs 60
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when SLV moved ahead of UNG.
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 (16.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
UNG 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 -1.21%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.67%, 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.
- 1UNG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLV's edge.
- 2UNG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SLV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SLV'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
UNG leads on balance| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -100% | 74% |
| Gross margin | 0% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 0% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0% | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0 |
Technicals
SLV has the stronger structure| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 66.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.1% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.2% | -10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.4% | 26.4% |
Risk
SLV is the more resilient| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | -0.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.13 | -0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -52.3% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -42.7% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.3% | 58.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SLV or UNG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 66 against UNG's 65. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. UNG 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 SLV or UNG the better buy right now?
SLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 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 SLV over UNG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SLV leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; UNG leads Momentum by 10 points; SLV leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, SLV or UNG?
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, SLV or UNG?
UNG on combined revenue and EPS growth. 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, SLV or UNG?
UNG on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, SLV or UNG?
SLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SLV on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 SLV more profitable than UNG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SLV's lead over UNG getting stronger or weaker?
SLV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when SLV moved ahead of UNG.
What would change the SLV vs UNG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLV's edge; UNG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SLV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SLV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SLV and UNG?
SLV: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. UNG: 1 bullish / 1 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 SLV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SLV and UNG 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.