Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

SIVR vs USO: how they differ

SIVR and USO are both commodity funds, and over the year USO returned more, +112.2% against +54.2%.

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF and United States Oil Fund, LP.

SIVR and USO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SIVR
abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF
USO
United States Oil Fund, LP
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerabrdnUSCF
What it isPhysical SilverOil
Total return, 1 year+54.2%+112.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+36.7 pts+94.7 pts
Expense ratio0.45%0.45%

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. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.45% a year. It sat 44.9% below its high of Jan 28, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

USO in plain words

USO is a commodity fund tracking the Oil. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +112.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 57.1% below its high of Apr 8, 2011 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SIVR or USO?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SIVR returned +54.2% and USO returned +112.2%, so USO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SIVR or USO?
SIVR charges 0.45% a year and USO charges 0.45%, so SIVR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

Where to next

SIVR against USO, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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 USO, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/sivr-vs-uso Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources