GLD vs SLV: Which Precious Metal ETF Rode Out Five Years More Smoothly?

Over the past five years, the iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT:SLV) and SPDR Gold Shares (NYSEMKT:GLD) have taken distinctly different paths. While SLV delivered explosive returns over the last year—162.7% versus GLD’s 72.4%—the ride for SLV investors proved far more turbulent. GLD’s steadier trajectory, lower fees, and reduced volatility have made it the preferred choice for investors seeking a smoother experience in precious metals exposure without sacrificing returns over the longer term.

Both funds track physical metal prices directly—silver for SLV and gold for GLD—without requiring investors to own the metals themselves. However, the historical performance and risk profiles of these two ETFs reveal why they appeal to fundamentally different investor profiles and portfolio strategies.

The Different Paths These Funds Have Ridden

GLD, managed by SPDR, oversees $174.1 billion in assets under management with over 21 years of track record. It provides pure exposure to gold bullion with no equity holdings, sector tilts, or dividend complications. The fund’s 100% Basic Materials classification reflects its direct tie to physical gold prices.

SLV, administered by iShares, manages $51.5 billion in assets and similarly offers unadulterated exposure to silver bullion. Despite being classified as 100% Real Estate in some data systems, it functions purely as a silver price tracker with no equity or yield components.

The fundamental difference lies not in structure but in the characteristics of the metals themselves. Gold, historically less plentiful and traditionally favored for wealth preservation, tends to move more predictably. Silver, more abundant and widely used in industrial applications, experiences more dramatic price fluctuations influenced by both speculative interest and actual consumption demand.

Performance & Volatility: How the Ride Diverged

The numbers paint a striking picture of divergent risk-return profiles. Over five years, a $1,000 investment in GLD would have grown to approximately $2,578, while the same investment in SLV would have reached $3,019. However, this higher return came with substantially greater downside exposure.

GLD experienced a maximum drawdown of -21.03% over the five-year period, while SLV’s maximum drawdown reached -38.79%—nearly double the decline. More dramatically, the January 30, 2026 market shock exemplified this volatility gap. When precious metal prices reversed sharply that day, SLV plummeted over 30% in a single session, while GLD declined approximately 10%.

This volatility difference extends to beta measurements relative to the S&P 500. GLD carries a beta of 0.16, indicating minimal correlation with broader market movements. SLV’s beta of 0.50 signals notably higher price sensitivity and market-driven swings.

On the cost front, GLD edges ahead with a 0.40% expense ratio compared to SLV’s 0.50%. While seemingly modest, this 0.10% difference compounds meaningfully over decades of holding, favoring GLD’s structural efficiency. Neither fund distributes yield, so fees represent the primary ongoing cost to investors.

What Drove Recent Market Movements

The sharp moves in late January reflected the interplay of falling interest rates and escalating geopolitical tensions, both of which typically drive investors toward precious metals as portfolio hedges. This macro environment benefited both funds, but SLV’s dual exposure—as both a wealth preservation tool and an industrial commodity—created outsized volatility.

Rising speculation in the lower-priced silver market amplified these swings. Silver’s accessibility to retail traders and its role in various industrial applications meant that sentiment shifts triggered more pronounced price reactions than occurred in the gold market, where institutional wealth preservation demand provided a steadying influence.

Choosing Your Ride Based on Risk Tolerance

The choice between these two funds hinges fundamentally on an investor’s risk tolerance and time horizon. SLV represents the appropriate selection for investors with higher risk capacity who can weather 30%+ single-day declines and accept the likelihood of deeper, more frequent drawdowns in exchange for potentially elevated long-term returns.

Conversely, GLD suits investors prioritizing capital stability and smoother performance trajectories. Its lower volatility, reduced drawdown history, and marginally lower fees combine to create a calmer long-term experience, particularly for those uncomfortable with the turbulence that silver’s industrial demand and speculative nature can generate.

Both remain highly liquid, allowing easy entry and exit positions. Both provide legitimate exposure to precious metals without requiring physical ownership or storage complications. The decision ultimately reflects individual circumstances rather than superior fund quality—they simply serve different portfolio objectives and psychological comfort levels regarding volatility and price swings.