Data as of Nov 4, 2026.
GDXJ vs SLVP: Holdings Overlap & Returns
Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, GDXJ returned +21.7% to SLVP's +31.0%; 17% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about GDXJ and SLVP
Net assets: $7.0bn on Nov 3, 2026 for VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF, and $799m on Nov 4, 2026 for iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF.
0% of GDXJ's weight is in S&P 500 companies and 100% is outside the index. Holdings as of Nov 2, 2026.
5% of SLVP's weight is in S&P 500 companies and 95% is outside the index. Holdings as of Nov 3, 2026.
Pair scorecard
SLVP costs 0.13 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 9.3 points; GDXJ is 9.6 times larger.
Points (pts) are percentage points.
| Measure | GDXJ | SLVP |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +21.7% | +31.0% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its all-time high | 33.3%, high on Feb 27, 2026 | 33.0%, high on Feb 27, 2026 |
| Against its benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Gold miners | Silver miners |
| Its benchmark, total return, 1 year | +15.0% | +15.0% |
| Against its benchmark, 1 year | ahead by 6.7 pts | ahead by 16.0 pts |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.39% |
| Net assets, as of Nov 3, 2026 | $7.0bn | $727m |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 17% | |
Risk and return
Feb 10, 2012 to Oct 30, 2026 · 768 weekly returns · each against ACWIFrom Feb 2012 to Oct 2026, SLVP returned more: +45.6% to +4.6%. SLVP swung slightly less: 41.1% to 42.8%. SLVP fell slightly less at its worst: −79.5% to −84.1%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | GDXJ | SLVP | ACWI | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | |||||
| Total return | +4.6% | +45.6% | SLVP | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. | |
| Annualized | +0.3% | +2.6% | SLVP | Total return as a yearly rate. | |
| Price return | −15.1% | +17.2% | SLVP | Price change alone, distributions left out. | |
| Risk | |||||
| Volatility | 42.8% | 41.1% | SLVP (slight) | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. | |
| Downside deviation | 30.0% | 28.2% | SLVP (slight) | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. | |
| Max drawdown | −84.1% | −79.5% | SLVP (slight) | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. | |
| Upside capture | 55.2% | 69.7% | 100.0% | SLVP | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. |
| Downside capture | 87.9% | 95.0% | 100.0% | GDXJ (slight) | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. |
| Beta | 0.89 | 0.96 | 1.00 | GDXJ lower | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.10 | 0.13 | 1.00 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | |||||
| Sharpe | 0.19 | 0.23 | SLVP | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. | |
| Sortino | 0.27 | 0.33 | SLVP | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. | |
| Treynor | 0.090 | 0.097 | 0.098 | SLVP (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. |
| Calmar | 0.00 | 0.03 | SLVP | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. | |
| Against the benchmark | |||||
| Benchmark | ACWI | ACWI | ACWI | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.7% a year | 0.0% a year | 0.0% | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.06 | 0.00 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. | |
| Alpha range | −21.5% to +20.1% | −19.7% to +19.7% | Both include zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. | |
| Information ratio | −0.04 | −0.01 | SLVP | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 40.6% | 38.4% | 0.0% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 768 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, GDXJ and SLVP hold 17% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Nov 3, 2026.
half
17% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Window by window
| Total return | vs its benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Window | GDXJ | SLVP | GDXJ | SLVP |
| 3 months | −4.8% | −6.8% | −3.5 pts vs ACWI | −5.5 pts vs ACWI |
| 6 months | −15.1% | −14.7% | −17.7 pts vs ACWI | −17.3 pts vs ACWI |
| 1 year | +21.7% | +31.0% | +6.7 pts vs ACWI | +16.0 pts vs ACWI |
| 3 years | +210.2% | +257.6% | +132.6 pts vs ACWI | +180.0 pts vs ACWI |
| Since launchNot the same days: GDXJ Nov 2009 · SLVP Feb 2012 | +44.7% | +53.4% | not measured | −314.3 pts vs ACWI |
Side by side
As of Nov 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
17% of the two portfolios are the same securities at the same weight.
Client brief:
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
GDXJ
By weight, 0% of GDXJ's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 41% of the fund across 155 positions, as published by its issuer for Nov 3, 2026. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026 the fund returned +21.7% with distributions reinvested against +15.0% for its benchmark, the MSCI ACWI Index, so a holder was ahead by 6.7 pts. It sits 33.3% below its all-time high of Feb 27, 2026.
SLVP
By weight, 5% of SLVP's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 72% of the fund across 37 positions, as published by its issuer for Nov 3, 2026. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026 the fund returned +31.0% with distributions reinvested against +15.0% for its benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index, so a holder was ahead by 16.0 pts. It sits 33.0% below its all-time high of Feb 27, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Do GDXJ and SLVP hold the same stocks?
- By their latest filings, 17% of their books are the same securities at the same weight. Overlap is the sum of the smaller weight of every security they share.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Every number is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, GDXJ against SLVP, data as of Nov 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/themes/gdxj-vs-slvp
ETFIQ. (Nov 4, 2026). GDXJ against SLVP. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/themes/gdxj-vs-slvp
[GDXJ against SLVP (ETFIQ, Nov 4, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/themes/gdxj-vs-slvp)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.