SLV vs UNG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SLV and UNG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SLV is iShares Silver Trust, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. SLV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has UNG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 57.
| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 1.17% |
| Holdings | 1 | 16 |
| Average volume | 17,030,003 | 15,240,597 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.4% | -9.3% |
| YTD return | -19.1% | -14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +18.1% | -33.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 63% | 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 | 57/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 33/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 68/100 | 42/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Silver Trust vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
UNG leads
UNG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support UNG.
iShares Silver Trust
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over SLV, 58 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while SLV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UNG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. UNG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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.
SLV 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 | SLV | UNG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.5% | 1.17% | SLV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -52.4% | -92.9% | SLV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 63% | 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 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 Resilience68 vs 42SLV +26
- Momentum33 vs 57UNG +24
- Quality72 vs 67SLV +5
2 of 4 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in momentum; SLV 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.
The lead changed hands: UNG moved ahead of SLV in the latest session.
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
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
SLV (iShares Silver Trust): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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 | SLV | UNG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 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 | 17,030,003 | 15,240,597 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 63% | 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. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | Even | 57 vs 58 |
| 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 | UNG | Price vs 50-day -9.1% vs -5%; vs 200-day -20.1% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SLV | Risk Resilience 68 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 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)
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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +1
- 57 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- UNG +3
- 54 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +3
- 55 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SLV +11
- 66 vs 55
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when UNG moved ahead of SLV.
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 SLV
- 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 +0.27%, 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.
- 1SLV closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2SLV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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.
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 |
Performance
UNG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.6% | -8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.2% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.3% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.9% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -19.1% | -14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.4% | -9.3% |
Technicals
UNG has the stronger structure| Metric | SLV | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.1% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.1% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.9% | 45.1% |
Risk
SLV is the more resilient| Metric | SLV | 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 | -50.6% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 63% | 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?
SLV has the lower expense ratio, 0.5% a year against 1.17% for UNG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLV has been more volatile over the past year, at 63% annualized against 58.7% for UNG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SLV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -52.4% against -92.9% for UNG.
Compare SLV 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.