Skip to content

GLTR vs SIVR

abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

GLTRBNYSE Arca

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

SIVRANYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

SIVR −0.30pt a year

GLTR0.60%SIVR0.30%

Avg volume · 30D

SIVR 24.1×the volume

GLTR61.1KSIVR1.47M

10Y return · a year

SIVR +0.3pt

GLTR+10.1%SIVR+10.4%

GLTR vs SIVR Performance

Oct 29, 2021 – Oct 30, 2026

+85.0%GLTR+103.7%SIVR

Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. GLTR +85.0%. SIVR +103.7%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.0%200%300%400%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026
Expense ratio
GLTR 0.60%
SIVR 0.30%, better
Fund size
GLTR $2.32B
SIVR $3.45B
1Y total return
GLTR −3.7%
SIVR +1.5%, better
Holdings
GLTR 1
SIVR 1
Avg volume (30D)
GLTR 61.1K sh
SIVR 1.47M sh, better
NAV per share
GLTR $167.14
SIVR $47.57
52W range

ETF.net Grade

GLTR: Cost 41, Risk 62, Mission 92, Tradability 57, Holdings not scored, Durability 69. SIVR: Cost 92, Risk 37, Mission 89, Tradability 52, Holdings not scored, Durability 73.
Pillar letters and Scores for GLTR, SIVR, with each pillar’s weight
PillarGLTRSIVR
Cost30% weightC41A92Higher
Mission25% weightA92HigherA89
Risk15% weightB62HigherD37
Tradability15% weightB57HigherC52
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightB69A73Higher

Rank among Physical Commodities funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. GLTR and SIVR are both graded against the same 9 Physical Commodities funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Physical Commodities⁠

Category · 9 funds
See all 9 ›

SIVR ranks 1st and GLTR 4th 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. Rank 4BGLTRabrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETFScore 63
  5. Rank 5BPPLTabrdn Physical Platinum Shares ETFScore 59

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

GLTRBabrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

SIVRAabrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

In short

GLTR Gold, silver, platinum and palladium in one wrapper, all held as physical bullion. GLTR is the rare one-ticker version of the entire precious-metals complex, running since 2010, and it owns the metal instead of renting exposure through futures.

SIVR Silver bullion in a vault, wrapped in a ticker. SIVR has done that one job since 2009 at 0.30% a year, half the going rate for physical metal funds, and fee is most of the tracking gap here.

Stated mandate

GLTR The Trust holds a physical bullion basket containing gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in specified proportions, with baskets issued against bullion deposits and bullion distributed on redemptions.

SIVR The Trust seeks to track the price of physical silver, after deducting its expenses.

Why people hold it

  • GLTR Four metals, one ticker: the trust holds physical gold, silver, platinum and palladium in set proportions, with baskets created and redeemed in bullion rather than cash.aberdeeninvestments.com
  • Trading since 2010 and now a multi-billion-dollar trust: one of the longest-standing ways to own the full metals basket inside a brokerage account.
  • Because it holds bullion outright, its results have tracked the underlying metals basket closely, less expenses, among the tighter records in the physical-commodity group.
  • The 0.60% fee sits right at the median for physically backed commodity funds, so the four-metal convenience is not priced above the category norm.
  • SIVR 0.30% a year, versus a 0.60% median across physical metal funds and 0.50% at the biggest silver trust, SLV. When the mandate is just holding metal, cost is the differentiator.
  • The mandate is one sentence: track the price of physical silver after expenses. Real metal, not futures contracts, swaps, or miner stocks standing in for the metal.
  • A multi-billion-dollar trust that trades actively, so entering and exiting is usually a routine order rather than a hunt for the other side.
  • Running since 2009 and rated among the strongest implementations in the physical commodity group, on both cost and how closely it delivers its stated mandate.

Worth knowing

  • GLTR Single-metal siblings cost less: SIVR charges 0.30% and SLV 0.50%. Bundling four metals into one line item costs a little more than buying one.
  • The proportions are set by the trust, and platinum and palladium bring industrial demand swings a gold-only holding does not. You cannot dial the mix yourself.
  • No income here. It is a grantor trust holding metal, pays no distributions, and volume is moderate rather than heavy, so spreads deserve a glance.
  • SIVR One metal, one price. Silver moves hard in both directions and there is no diversification inside the trust to soften it.
  • Bullion generates no cash flow, so this is a price-only holding rather than an income one.
  • It is a commodity trust, not a registered 1940 Act fund, so the legal protections and tax treatment differ from a standard stock or bond ETF.

Full GLTR profile⁠

Full SIVR profile⁠

GLTR vs SIVR 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.

GLTR vs SIVR Cost

Overpaying GLTR vs SIVR

$5,668

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

  • GLTR 0.60%

    $11,817

  • SIVR 0.30%

    $6,149

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • GLTR 0.60%
  • SIVR 0.30%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2.5K$5K$7.5K$10K$12.5K051015202530GLTR $11,817SIVR $6,149

Year by year

YearGLTRSIVROverpaying
10$1,076$545$531
20$4,116$2,113$2,003
30$11,817$6,149$5,668

Expense ratio

  • 0.60%GLTR
  • 0.30%SIVR, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Commodities funds
  • Median 0.60%

SIVR cheapest of 9 funds

GLTR 5th cheapest of 9 funds

GLTR vs SIVR Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
GLTR None
SIVR None

Distribution history

GLTRAll GLTR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

SIVRAll SIVR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

GLTR vs SIVR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

  • GLTR
  • SIVR
Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. Worst fall: SIVR −57.7% · Oct 2026. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−60%−40%−20%0%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
GLTR 24.1%, betterSIVR 37.0%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
GLTR 0.82, betterSIVR 0.75
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
GLTR −41.9%, betterSIVR −57.7%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
GLTR 0.68SIVR 1.26

GLTR and SIVR in the news

Popular comparisons

  • GLTRBvsSLVB

    abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF · iShares Silver Trust

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

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · iShares Silver Trust

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

    abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF · GraniteShares Platinum Trust

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

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · GraniteShares Platinum Trust

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

    abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF · abrdn Physical Platinum Shares ETF

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

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · abrdn Physical Platinum Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.