Sprott Gold Miners ETF outperforms abrdn Silver Fund on five-year returns

The Sprott Gold Miners ETF (SGDM) has generated a total return of 190% over the last five years, a compound annual growth rate of 23.7%, outpacing the abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF (SIVR) which delivered a 153% total return and a 20.4% compound annual growth rate over the same period. The performance gap highlights the distinct risk profiles of equity-based mining exposure versus direct physical commodity ownership.

SGDM holds a portfolio of 48 companies focused on gold producers in the United States and Canada, while SIVR tracks the spot price of physical silver bullion by holding the metal in secure vaults. This structural difference means SGDM carries operational risks associated with the mining sector, including labor disputes and supply chain disruptions, whereas SIVR's performance is tied directly to silver prices without exposure to business management or extraction costs. Both funds serve as hedges against market volatility but respond differently to commodity price swings.

Investors considering these funds must also weigh the cost of entry. SIVR charges a 0.3% expense ratio, making it more affordable for long-term holders than SGDM, which carries a 0.46% fee. For an investor placing $10,000 into each fund, SGDM costs $46 per year while SIVR costs $30. Both rates are considered average for the ETF universe.

Income generation further distinguishes the two vehicles. SGDM offers a trailing-12-month dividend yield of 0.97%, while SIVR pays no dividend. The abrdn fund launched in 2009, while the Sprott fund began operations in 2014. SGDM concentrates 100% of its assets in the basic materials sector and typically commits 90% of its net assets to its underlying index.

The largest positions in SGDM include Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd at 9.80%, Newmont at 7.58%, and Barrick Mining at 7.50%. In contrast, SIVR's largest position is physical silver at 100.00%, and because it tracks a commodity rather than operating businesses, a sector breakdown is not reported. Beta for both funds is calculated from monthly returns over available fund history up to five years, measuring price volatility relative to the S&P 500.

The choice between the two funds depends on an investor's tolerance for operational risk and preference for cost efficiency. Those willing to accept greater risk for potentially higher returns and income may lean toward SGDM, while cost-conscious investors seeking pure-metal exposure untethered from mining operations may find SIVR more suitable.