Skip to content

RING vs SLVR

iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF

RINGBNasdaq

Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF

SLVRDNasdaq

Overlap

2.2%by weight

Expense ratio

RING −0.26pt a year

RING0.39%SLVR0.65%

Avg volume · 30D

RING 5.2×the volume

RING649KSLVR124K

RING vs SLVR Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+10.3%RING+6.5%SLVR

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. RING +10.3%. SLVR +6.5%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.40%60%80%100%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
RING 0.39%, better
SLVR 0.65%
Fund size
RING $2.06B
SLVR $555M
1Y total return
RING +10.3%, better
SLVR +6.5%
Yield (12M)
RING 1.35%
SLVR No data
Holdings
RING 49
SLVR 77
Avg volume (30D)
RING 649K sh, better
SLVR 124K sh
NAV per share
RING $67.07
SLVR $44.16
52W range

ETF.net Grade

RING: Cost 79, Risk 66, Mission not scored, Tradability 72, Holdings 22, Durability 81. SLVR: Cost 26, Risk 30, Mission not scored, Tradability 76, Holdings 30, Durability 43.
Pillar letters and Scores for RING, SLVR, with each pillar’s weight
PillarRINGSLVR
Cost30% weightA79HigherD26
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightB66HigherD30
Tradability15% weightA72A76Higher
Holdings10% weightF22D30Higher
Durability5% weightA81HigherC43

Rank among Precious Metals Miners funds

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

Same Category. RING and SLVR are both graded against the same 18 Precious Metals Miners funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Precious Metals Miners⁠

Category · 18 funds
See all 18 ›

RING ranks 1st and SLVR 16th of 18 funds in the Precious Metals Miners Category.

  1. Rank 1BRINGiShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETFScore 67
  2. Rank 2BSGDMSprott Gold Miners ETFScore 66
  3. Rank 15CPMTLFIRST TRUST INDXX QUALITY PRECIOUS METALS MINERS ETFScore 40
  4. Rank 16DSLVRSprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETFScore 38
  5. Rank 17DGBUGSprott Active Gold & Silver Miners ETFScore 34

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

RINGBiShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF

SLVRDSprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF

In short

RING The low-fee way to own the gold diggers. RING holds roughly 40 gold mining companies worldwide for 0.39% a year, undercutting most funds in its niche, and it has been running that playbook since 2012.

SLVR Most silver funds make you choose: the metal or the miners. SLVR holds both, tracking an index of silver-mining companies alongside physical-silver trusts, in a peer group where 'precious metals miners' usually means gold.

Stated mandate

RING The Fund seeks to track, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Solactive Global Gold Explorers & Developers Total Return Index. It invests at least 80% of total assets in securities of companies economically tied to gold exploration.

SLVR The Fund seeks to track an index focused on silver-mining companies and physical-silver trusts. It normally invests at least 80% of total assets in securities of that index.

Why people hold it

  • RING At 0.39% a year it charges less than the typical gold-miner fund, and less than VanEck's GDX and GDXJ, the category's best-known names.ishares.com
  • Pure play by design: the index targets companies primarily in the business of gold mining, so you get miners rather than a mixed metals-and-materials basket.ishares.com
  • The mandate is global, not US-only, so the portfolio can reach gold producers listed across developed and emerging markets.ishares.com
  • Live since 2012, a multi-billion-dollar fund that trades actively, and one of the strongest builds in its precious-metals miner peer group.
  • SLVR One wrapper, both sides of the silver trade: the index blends silver miners with physical-silver trusts, and at least 80% of assets normally sit in it.
  • Genuinely silver-first. Much of its cohort (RING, GDX, GDXJ) is built around gold miners, with silver as an afterthought.
  • The portfolio hews closely to the index it promises, with little style drift, and spreads across roughly 80 miners and metal trusts.

Worth knowing

  • RING Roughly 40 stocks in a single industry. The largest miners carry real weight, so one company's bad quarter is felt across the fund.ishares.com
  • This is mining equity, not bullion. Alongside the gold price you take on company execution, mine geology, labor and country risk.ishares.com
  • Income is an afterthought here: distributions come once or twice a year, not monthly.
  • SLVR At 0.65% a year, it costs more than the typical fund in its group. AGMI (0.35%) and SLVP (0.39%) cover silver miners for less.
  • One metal, one industry. Miner shares tend to amplify silver's swings in both directions, and this book is concentrated.
  • Launched in 2025, so the track record is short. Volume is moderate rather than heavy, and cash comes back once or twice a year, not monthly.

Full RING profile⁠

Full SLVR profile⁠

RING vs SLVR Holdings

How RING and SLVR differ

Overlap by weight

2.2%

Shared holdings make up 3.6% of RING and 2.2% of SLVR.

Level by level

  • Holdings2 in both2.2%
  • Countryby domicile64.6%
  • Asset classEquity100%

Sector

No Sector split for SLVR.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in RING and SLVR, widest gap first
CountryMore in RINGMore in SLVR
CanadaSLVR +31.3 points
United StatesRING +16.0 points
South AfricaRING +11.2 points
United KingdomRING +3.4 points
MexicoSLVR +2.7 points
AustraliaRING +2.4 points
ChinaRING +2.3 points
PeruSLVR +0.9 points
SwedenSLVR +0.4 points

Outside the US: RING 83% developed, 17% emerging.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

  • RING67.1%
  • SLVR74.3%

Securities held

  • RING40
  • SLVR77

Asset class

RING
Equity
SLVR
Equity

Holdings

  • Only in RING38
  • In both2
  • Only in SLVR75

Only in RING

38 securities, 96.3% of RING by weight

  • Newmont17.66%
  • Agnico Eagle Mines12.74%
  • Barrick Mining8.77%

Only in SLVR

75 securities, 97.9% of SLVR by weight

  • First Majestic Silver Corp.20.25%
  • Sprott Physical Silver Trust18.19%
  • Aya Gold & Silver Inc.9.55%

Weight gaps

All 2 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in RING and SLVR, widest gap first
HoldingMore in RINGMore in SLVR
Coeur MiningCDERING +0.88 points
Hochschild Mining PLCHOC.LRING +0.49 points

All 40 RING holdings⁠All 77 SLVR 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.

RING vs SLVR Cost

Overpaying SLVR vs RING

$4,819

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

  • RING 0.39%

    $7,898

  • SLVR 0.65%

    $12,717

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • RING 0.39%
  • SLVR 0.65%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K051015202530SLVR $12,717RING $7,898

Year by year

YearRINGSLVROverpaying
10$705$1,163$458
20$2,725$4,440$1,715
30$7,898$12,717$4,819

Expense ratio

  • 0.39%RING, cheaper
  • 0.65%SLVR
  • Middle half of Precious Metals Miners funds
  • Median 0.52%

RING 4th cheapest of 18 funds

SLVR 12th cheapest of 18 funds

RING vs SLVR Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Yield (12M)
RING 1.35%
SLVR No data
Payout (12M)
RING $0.90
SLVR No data
Last payment
RING $0.53
SLVR $2.05
Ex-dividend
RING Jun 15, 2026
SLVR Dec 18, 2025
Paid on
RING Jun 18, 2026
SLVR Dec 22, 2025
Frequency
RING Twice a year
SLVR Irregular

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

RINGTwice a year · 19 paymentsAll RING payments⁠
One bar per payment. 19 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Jun 20, 2017 $0.03; Dec 19, 2017 $0.05; Jun 19, 2018 $0.07; Dec 18, 2018 $0.04; Jun 17, 2019 $0.14; Dec 16, 2019 $0.05; Jun 15, 2020 $0.10; Dec 14, 2020 $0.14; Jun 10, 2021 $0.31; Dec 13, 2021 $0.33; Jun 9, 2022 $0.23; Dec 13, 2022 $0.28; Jun 7, 2023 $0.21; Dec 20, 2023 $0.28; Jun 11, 2024 $0.19; Dec 17, 2024 $0.22; Jun 16, 2025 $0.24; Dec 16, 2025 $0.38; Jun 15, 2026 $0.53. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$22017202020232026YTD
SLVRIrregular · 1 paymentAll SLVR payments⁠
One bar per payment. 1 payment from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Dec 18, 2025 $2.05. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$22017202020232026YTD

RING vs SLVR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
RING 42.3%SLVR 57.3%since Feb 2025
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
RING 1.01SLVR 0.95since Feb 2025
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
RING −47.9%SLVR −47.2%since Jan 2025
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
RING 0.94SLVR 1.02

RING and SLVR in the news

Popular comparisons

  • RINGBvsSGDMB

    iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF · Sprott Gold Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.39% · 0.46%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVRDvsSGDMB

    Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF · Sprott Gold Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.65% · 0.46%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • RINGBvsGDXB

    iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF · VanEck Gold Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.39% · 0.51%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVRDvsGDXB

    Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF · VanEck Gold Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.65% · 0.51%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • RINGBvsSLVPB

    iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF · iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.39% · 0.39%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • SLVRDvsSLVPB

    Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF · iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.65% · 0.39%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.