Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

SIVR vs TIP: how they differ

SIVR is a commodity fund and TIP a bond index fund, and over the year SIVR returned more, +54.2% against −1.0%.

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF and iShares TIPS Bond ETF.

SIVR and TIP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SIVR
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF
TIP
iShares TIPS Bond ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerabrdniShares
What it isPhysical SilverTIPS Bond
Total return, 1 year+54.2%−1.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+36.7 pts−18.5 pts
Expense rationot published0.18%
Holdingsnot filed48

SIVR in plain words

SIVR is a commodity fund tracking the Physical Silver. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +54.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 44.9% below its high of Jan 28, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

TIP in plain words

TIP is a bond fund tracking the TIPS Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −1.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SIVR or TIP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SIVR returned +54.2% and TIP returned −1.0%, so SIVR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

SIVR against TIP, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, SIVR against TIP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SIVR-TIP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources