ETF Comparison: Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) Versus Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (SILJ)

SIL versus SILJ: Total Cost of Ownership

One rule worth repeating is that the more specific an ETF becomes, the more it tends to cost. Sector ETFs are pricier than broad market funds, industry ETFs are pricier than sector funds, and thematic products usually cost more still. Silver miners sit firmly in the industry category.

Neither of these ETFs is cheap. SIL charges a 0.65% expense ratio, while SILJ comes in slightly higher at 0.69%. On a $10,000 investment, that translates to an annual fee drag of $65 versus $69. For long-term investors, the expense ratio is the primary cost to consider.

Short-term traders also need to account for bid-ask spreads. Here, SILJ is surprisingly more liquid. SIL has a 30-day average bid-ask spread of 0.08%, while SILJ is notably tighter at 0.038%.

Verdict: When expense ratios and trading costs are considered together, the result is effectively a draw. SIL is marginally cheaper for long-term holders, while SILJ is cheaper to trade over shorter time horizons.

SIL versus SILJ: Methodology and Exposure

Both ETFs are passive and track index benchmarks, but the similarities largely end there. While there is some overlap between their baskets, investors need to be careful when selecting.

SIL tracks the Selective Global Silver Miners Index. The fund holds 26 companies, overwhelmingly in the materials sector. Many holdings are not pure-play silver miners and often have meaningful gold exposure as well, which can dilute sensitivity to silver prices.

SILJ tracks the Nasdaq Metals Focus Silver Miners Index. While a portion of the portfolio still consists of firms with market capitalizations above $10 billion, more than half of the fund sits in the mid-cap range between $2 billion and $10 billion. About 15.27% of the portfolio falls between $300 million and $2 billion, adding a clear speculative tilt.

Geographically, both ETFs are heavily weighted toward Canada, which reflects the country’s role as a global hub for precious metals mining. Canada offers relatively stable political and regulatory conditions, making expropriation or nationalization far less likely than in many emerging markets. Both ETFs also maintain meaningful U.S. exposure.

Neither fund is particularly diversified. In SIL, the top 15 holdings account for 91.35% of the portfolio. SILJ is slightly less concentrated, with the top 15 making up 79.92%, but both are best viewed as satellite allocations rather than core holdings.

The composition of top holdings highlights the difference in approach. SIL is closer to a buy-the-industry option, with larger allocations to established companies. Wheaton Precious Metals alone represents 23.94% of the fund. While Wheaton is a streamer rather than a traditional miner, it remains closely tied to silver prices through its royalty structure.

SILJ, by contrast, leans heavily into mid-cap producers such as Hecla Mining and First Majestic Silver, with a long tail of smaller, higher-risk names. These companies offer greater upside in strong silver markets but come with more operational and financing risk.

Verdict: SIL provides broad exposure across the silver mining industry, balancing scale and stability. SILJ adds more leverage through smaller and less established miners. That leverage can enhance returns in bull markets and deepen losses in bear markets. Personally, I think SIL is the better “all around” option.

SIL versus SILJ: Risk and Return

Performance for both ETFs has been strong during the recent silver bull market. Over one year, SILJ returned roughly 224%, compared with 199% for SIL. Over five years, returns have been closer, with SILJ posting 127.46% and SIL returning 122.75%. Investor interest has followed performance. Over the past five years, SIL attracted $1.94 billion in net inflows, while SILJ saw $1.79 billion.

Volatility remains high for both. Over the trailing five-year period, SIL posted volatility of 36.27%. SILJ was higher at 41.97%, reflecting its heavier exposure to junior and mid-cap miners. Maximum drawdowns over that period were similar, at roughly 55% for both funds. Recovery times were long. SIL spent 1,462 days underwater at its deepest drawdown, while SILJ remained below its prior peak for 1,527 days.

Over longer horizons, both ETFs have underperformed spot silver. From late 2012 through January 2026, SIL delivered an annualized return of 3.66%, SILJ returned 4.91%, while spot silver returned 6.66%. The reason is simple. Leverage works in both directions. Losses compound faster, and larger gains are required to recover. A 10% decline requires an 11% gain just to break even, and those effects worsen over time.

Verdict: SIL remains the more balanced option. It offers leveraged exposure to silver prices without leaning too heavily into speculative juniors. SILJ can outperform sharply in strong bull markets, but the downside risk is substantial. For most investors looking to express a bullish silver thesis, I think SIL is the more manageable starting point.

Please note this article is for information purposes only and does not in any way constitute investment advice. It is essential that you seek advice from a registered financial professional prior to making any investment decision.