What do the expense ratios for RING and SLVP mean for investors?

Both RING and SLVP have an expense ratio of 0.39%. This percentage is the annual fee charged by the fund manager to cover operational costs, including management and administration. It directly reduces the net return of the investment. Since both funds carry the same expense ratio, cost is not a differentiating factor between them. When comparing two ETFs with identical fee structures, investors should focus on their underlying assets and how those align with their personal financial objectives rather than expecting cost savings by choosing one over the other.

Why does RING have higher net assets than SLVP, and what does that indicate?

RING holds net assets of $2.5 billion, whereas SLVP holds $986 million. Higher net assets generally suggest greater market participation and potentially better liquidity, meaning larger volumes can be traded without significantly impacting the fund's price. However, a smaller fund size is not necessarily a drawback. It might simply reflect lower investor demand for that specific type of exposure or a newer trend in commodity preferences. This difference in asset size is one of the primary structural distinctions between the two iShares precious metals ETFs.

What does 'Equity Precious Metals' category mean in this context?

The 'Equity Precious Metals' category indicates that these ETFs do not hold physical gold, silver, or other metals. Instead, they invest in the shares of companies involved in the mining and exploration of these precious resources. This means their performance is tied to both the price of the commodities themselves and the operational success or failure of the mining companies. Investing in these funds exposes investors to equity market risks and company-specific issues in addition to commodity price volatility, differentiating them from pure commodity trackers.

How do the top holdings of RING and SLVP differ?

RING's top holdings include Newmont Corporation (NEM) at 16.37% and Coeur Mining (CDE) at 3.38%. In contrast, SLVP's largest holding is Hecla Mining Company (HL) at 14.50%, followed by NEM at 4.56% and CDE at 1.80%. While they share some top-10 holdings like NEM and CDE, the weighting and inclusion of HL highlight their distinct focuses. RING is heavily concentrated in major gold producers, while SLVP has significant exposure to silver and other industrial metals miners, leading to different performance drivers and risk profiles despite similar category classifications.

How do the dividend yields of RING and SLVP compare?

SLVP currently offers a higher dividend yield of 1.85% compared to RING's 1.08%. This difference suggests that the companies within SLVP's portfolio may have a more substantial focus on income distribution or are in sectors where paying dividends is more common relative to growth reinvestment. However, dividend yields can fluctuate based on the underlying companies' earnings and decisions. Investors should consider that a higher yield does not always equal a better total return. The capital appreciation potential of the mining stocks within each fund also plays a crucial role in overall investment performance.

What are the inception dates for RING and SLVP?

Both RING and SLVP share the same inception date of January 31, 2012. This means they have been operating for the same length of time, having launched simultaneously as part of iShares' precious metals mining ETF offerings. Because they share this launch date, investors have access to a comparable history for both funds. This identical inception date allows for a direct long-term performance comparison, as both funds have faced the same market conditions, regulatory changes, and economic cycles over their operational lives, making historical comparisons more meaningful and apples-to-apples.

What index do RING and SLVP track?

For the purpose of this educational comparison, the specific index tracked by each fund is listed as 'not available' in the current data. Typically, ETFs with these names would track specific MSCI indices for global gold or silver miners. However, without the precise index benchmark provided, investors cannot confirm the exact methodology or constituent selection rules. It is important to consult the official fund documentation or provider websites for the most current information on which specific MSCI indices are being replicated by these iShares funds for accurate portfolio assessment.

How do the sector weights compare between the two funds?

The sector weights for both RING and SLVP are currently listed as 'not available' in the provided data. Sector weight details would typically reveal the precise breakdown of how much each fund is exposed to specific sub-sectors within precious metals mining, such as diversified miners versus pure-play gold or silver companies. Without this data, investors cannot perform a granular risk analysis based on sector exposure. It is advisable to refer to the latest official fund fact sheets to understand the specific distribution of capital across different mining sub-sectors for these ETFs.

Which fund is suitable for which investing goal?

RING is primarily associated with investors seeking targeted exposure to gold mining companies. Its holdings are weighted heavily towards major gold producers, making it a direct play on gold price movements through equity leverage. SLVP, conversely, is geared towards investors wanting exposure to silver and broader industrial metals miners. Its inclusion of companies like Hecla Mining indicates a focus on precious metals with significant industrial applications. The choice between them depends on whether an investor's goal is centered on gold's safe-haven attributes or the dual nature of silver as a precious and industrial commodity.

What does the overlap in shared top-10 holdings mean?

RING and SLVP share Newmont Corporation (NEM) and Coeur Mining (CDE) in their respective top-10 holdings. This overlap indicates that these two mining companies are significant enough to be included in both gold-focused and silver/metal-focused indices, likely because they have diversified portfolios involving multiple precious metals or because they are leaders in the broader mining sector. However, the weighting of these shared companies differs significantly between the funds. This demonstrates that while they hold some of the same stocks, the overall portfolio construction and risk exposure are shaped by the dominant weightings unique to each fund's primary commodity focus.

RING vs SLVP

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare RING and SLVP, both iShares precious metals ETFs. This page outlines fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking. RING holds $2.5 billion; SLVP holds $986 million. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare RING and SLVP, both iShares precious metals ETFs. This page outlines fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking. RING holds $2.5 billion; SLVP holds $986 million. Educational content, not f...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

RING

Metric

SLVP

0.39%

Expense Ratio

0.39%

1.08%

Dividend Yield

1.85%

$2.50B

Net Assets

$985.57M

52

Holdings

49

Jan 31, 2012

Inception Date

Jan 31, 2012

–

Index Tracked

–

Equity Precious Metals

Fund Category

Equity Precious Metals

Both funds charge the same annual fee.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	RING	SLVP
NEMNewmont Corporation	16.37%	4.56%
CDECoeur Mining, Inc.	3.38%	1.80%

Discover More Comparisons

RING vs SGDM

Compare RING and SGDM on fees, holdings, dividends, and tracking. RING: 0.39% expense ratio, SGDM: 0.46%. Note data gaps for index and sectors.

GDX vs SLVP

Compare GDX and SLVP ETFs. Review fee structures, top holdings, dividend yields, tracking methods, and operational history for these precious metals funds.

SIVR vs SLVP

Compare SIVR and SLVP ETFs on expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, and index focus. Explore how each fund tracks the silver market for research.

Investment Analysis

RING

Pros

:

Considerations

:

SLVP

Pros

:

Considerations

:

Related Market Insights

The New Gold Rush: Fed Probe Sparks Flight to Safety

A criminal probe into the Fed Chair has sent gold prices soaring to record highs. Discover how Nemo's Gold Rush Neme helps investors gain exposure to this ultimate safe haven asset.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

13 January 2026

Read Insight

Related Market Insights

The New Gold Rush: Fed Probe Sparks Flight to Safety

A criminal probe into the Fed Chair has sent gold prices soaring to record highs. Discover how Nemo's Gold Rush Neme helps investors gain exposure to this ultimate safe haven asset.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

13 January 2026

Read Insight

About RING and SLVP

RING (RING)

SLVP (SLVP)

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Gold Rush: Could Fed Probe Drive Safe Haven Demand?

An unprecedented criminal probe into the Federal Reserve Chair has sparked a flight to safety, driving gold prices to record highs. This theme focuses on gold miners and related companies that stand to benefit from sustained demand for this safe-haven asset.

Published: 13 January 2026

Explore Basket