Skip to content

CTWO vs SLV

COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust

CTWO—NYSE Arca

iShares Silver Trust

SLVBNYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

SLV −0.29pt a year

CTWO0.79%SLV0.50%

Avg volume · 30D

SLV 18386.8×the volume

CTWO889SLV16.3M

CTWO vs SLV Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+8.3%CTWO+1.3%SLV

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. CTWO +8.3%. SLV +1.3%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.50%75%100%125%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
CTWO 0.79%
SLV 0.50%, better
Fund size
CTWO $2M
SLV $25.2B
1Y total return
CTWO +8.3%, better
SLV +1.3%
Holdings
CTWO 2
SLV 1
Avg volume (30D)
CTWO 889 sh
SLV 16.3M sh, better
NAV per share
CTWO $19.60
SLV $45.22
52W range

ETF.net Grade

  • —CTWOUnder classification review
SLV: Cost 67, Risk 37, Mission 89, Tradability 71, Holdings not scored, Durability 84.
Pillar letters and Scores for CTWO, SLV, with each pillar’s weight
PillarCTWOSLV
Cost30% weightNot scoredB67
Mission25% weightNot scoredA89
Risk15% weightNot scoredD37
Tradability15% weightNot scoredA71
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightNot scoredA84

Rank among Physical Commodities funds

Physical Commodities⁠

Category · 9 funds
See all 9 ›

SLV ranks 2nd of 9 funds in the Physical Commodities Category.

  1. Rank 1ASIVRabrdn Physical Silver Shares ETFScore 74
  2. Rank 2BSLViShares Silver TrustScore 69
  3. Rank 3BPLTMGraniteShares Platinum TrustScore 65
  4. CTWONot yet graded

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CTWO—COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust

SLVBiShares Silver Trust

In short

CTWO No data

SLV Silver, unbundled: real bars sitting with a custodian, a share price that shadows the LBMA Silver Price less a 0.50% fee. Trading since 2006 and one of the busiest commodity funds on the tape, it's the default way people put silver in a brokerage account.

Stated mandate

CTWO No data

SLV The Trust seeks to reflect the performance of silver prices before its expenses and liabilities. Its assets consist primarily of silver held by a custodian.

Why people hold it

CTWO No data

  • SLV The deep end of the silver pool: running since 2006, a multi-billion-dollar trust, and very actively traded, which is what keeps spreads tight and the options market busy.
  • Metal, not machinery. Assets are physical silver held by a custodian and priced off the LBMA Silver Price. No futures roll, no miner earnings, no swap counterparty.sec.gov
  • 0.50% a year, under the typical physical-metal trust, and the design is about as plain as it gets: bullion price minus expenses, tracked closely.

Worth knowing

CTWO No data

  • SLV SIVR runs the same physical-silver idea for 0.30%. The extra fee here buys size and trading depth, not different metal.
  • No income. Bullion pays nothing, and the trustee sells silver to cover expenses, so the metal behind each share slowly shrinks.sec.gov
  • One metal, one price. Nothing inside the trust cushions a silver drawdown, and silver is a jumpy market by nature.

Full CTWO profile⁠

Full SLV profile⁠

CTWO vs SLV Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CTWO vs SLV Cost

Overpaying CTWO vs SLV

$5,195

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • CTWO 0.79%

    $15,174

  • SLV 0.50%

    $9,979

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • CTWO 0.79%
  • SLV 0.50%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530CTWO $15,174SLV $9,979

Year by year

YearCTWOSLVOverpaying
10$1,405$900$505
20$5,331$3,460$1,871
30$15,174$9,979$5,195

Expense ratio

  • 0.79%CTWO
  • 0.50%SLV, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Commodities funds
  • Median 0.60%

SLV 3rd cheapest of 9 funds

CTWO 9th cheapest of 9 funds

CTWO vs SLV Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
CTWO None
SLV None

Distribution history

CTWOAll CTWO payments⁠

No distribution history available.

SLVAll SLV payments⁠

No distribution history available.

CTWO vs SLV Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
CTWO 23.6%since Jul 2025SLV 37.0%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
CTWO 0.54since Jul 2025SLV 0.75
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
CTWO −30.1%since Jun 2025SLV −57.8%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
CTWO 1.28SLV 1.26

CTWO and SLV in the news

Popular comparisons

  • CTWO—vsSIVRA

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.30%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVBvsSIVRA

    iShares Silver Trust · abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.30%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • CTWO—vsPLTMB

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · GraniteShares Platinum Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVBvsPLTMB

    iShares Silver Trust · GraniteShares Platinum Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • CTWO—vsGLTRB

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVBvsGLTRB

    iShares Silver Trust · abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.