When gold and silver move, their miners do not necessarily follow at the same pace. A rising metal can coexist with deteriorating participation across mining equities. That distinction is often lost when attention is focused exclusively on sector ETFs or a handful of leading stocks.
Our latest analysis measures the proportion of individual mining stocks outperforming GLD in the GDX–GDXJ universe and SLV in the SIL–SILJ universe. We examine four return horizons, using the same weekly observation date: October 16, 2026.
Are miners beating their metals?
Percentage of stocks outperforming the reference metal · Week ending October 16, 2026
Gold miners vs. GLD
Share of mining stocks outperforming GLD
Silver miners vs. SLV
Share of mining stocks outperforming SLV
Gold miners: a sharp short-term reversal
Only 22.4% of gold miners outperformed GLD over the latest week, and just 19.7% did so over four weeks. Yet the three-month reading remains 75.5%, with 58.2% ahead year to date.
This is a striking difference between time horizons. Gold miners had built substantial relative leadership over three months, but the latest month has seen broad underperformance against gold. The weakness is not confined to a few isolated stocks: it affects the majority of the measured universe.
Silver miners: a more balanced short-term picture
The corresponding silver readings are 52.1% for the latest week and 47.9% over four weeks. Over three months, 58.3% of silver miners outperformed SLV, rising to 71.6% year to date.
Silver miners are also experiencing uneven relative performance, but the short-term picture is considerably less one-sided than in gold mining equities. Around half the silver universe is still keeping pace with—or exceeding—the metal over the shortest horizons.
How unusual is the weakness in gold miners?
The advantage of a reconstructed weekly history is that the latest readings can be placed in context. Our series contains 151 weekly observations from December 1, 2023 through October 16, 2026. It is not a multi-decade backtest, but it is long enough to distinguish an ordinary fluctuation from a relatively uncommon reading within this sample.
Across those 151 observations, the median share of gold miners outperforming GLD over four weeks was 55.6%. The latest reading, 19.7%, is not merely below that midpoint: it lies at approximately the 9th percentile of the observed distribution. In other words, fewer than one in ten weekly readings in this sample were this low or lower.
The one-week reading of 22.4% is also weak, at roughly the 15th percentile of its historical distribution. Yet the three-month reading of 75.5% is above its historical median of 60.0%. This juxtaposition is the central finding: the recent loss of relative participation has been severe without erasing the broader three-month leadership.
Silver miners have not followed the same path
Silver miners show a different distribution. Their latest four-week reading of 47.9% sits around the 44th percentile of their own 151-week history, close to the middle rather than near an extreme. The historical median for that measure is 53.2%.
On a one-week basis, silver miners recovered to 52.1% outperforming SLV, from 39.6% the previous week. Gold miners moved in the opposite direction, falling from 40.1% to 22.4%. That does not make silver miners uniformly strong, but it does indicate that the latest relative deterioration is far more concentrated in the gold-mining universe.
One month changed the relative picture
The four-week participation readings show how quickly the divergence developed. On September 18, 51.7% of gold miners were beating GLD, compared with 47.9% of silver miners beating SLV. By October 16, those figures had moved to 19.7% and 47.9%, respectively.
Four-week relative breadth: five-week progression
| Week ending | Gold miners vs GLD | Silver miners vs SLV | Silver minus gold |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18 | 51.7% | 47.9% | −3.8 pp |
| Sep 25 | 34.0% | 20.8% | −13.2 pp |
| Oct 2 | 25.2% | 32.3% | +7.1 pp |
| Oct 9 | 24.5% | 35.4% | +10.9 pp |
| Oct 16 | 19.7% | 47.9% | +28.2 pp |
Percentage-point spread compares the share of stocks outperforming each universe's own metal benchmark; it is not a return spread between gold and silver miners.
The current 28.2-percentage-point silver-minus-gold gap ranks near the 95th percentile of the 151 weekly observations. The historical median gap was approximately −5.6 points, meaning that the gold-mining universe more often had the higher four-week participation reading during this sample.
This does not prove that silver mining shares will outperform gold mining shares in price terms. The two universes contain different stocks and their metal benchmarks behave differently. It does, however, show an unusually wide contrast in how broadly the two groups are outperforming their respective metals.
Why the time horizons disagree
Consider what the four-week and three-month measures actually capture. A company can have delivered a substantial excess return over the preceding quarter while losing ground to the metal during the most recent month. Both statements can be true simultaneously.
That is exactly what the gold-miner readings suggest. The short window highlights an abrupt deterioration; the longer window preserves evidence of the earlier advance. The next few observations will help distinguish a temporary pause in relative leadership from a more durable rotation away from mining equities.
For silver, the longer-term picture is also worth separating from the immediate noise: 71.6% of the measured silver-mining universe has outperformed SLV year to date. That is around the 82nd percentile of the available YTD observations. Year-to-date windows reset each January, however, so their distribution should not be interpreted as a uniform rolling-horizon comparison.
What would signal a genuine improvement?
We will watch for three developments. First, a sustained rise in the weekly share of gold miners beating GLD, rather than a single isolated rebound. Second, a recovery in the four-week measure toward and above the 50% majority threshold. Third, whether that improvement spreads across the universe instead of depending on a small group of standout stocks.
For silver miners, the immediate question is whether the near-even four-week balance develops into a durable majority. A stronger reading in both universes would be more persuasive than one driven solely by weakness in the reference metal.
These are diagnostic conditions, not tested entry signals. The 50% line is a transparent breadth threshold, not a statistically optimized trading rule. Historical percentiles describe how unusual today's readings are within our available sample; they do not predict the direction of future returns.
The bottom line
Gold miners are experiencing an unusually broad short-term loss of leadership against gold, even as their three-month record remains comparatively strong. Silver miners, meanwhile, have maintained a more balanced short-term relationship with silver, and the contrast between the two universes has widened sharply.
The question is not simply whether gold and silver rise next. It is whether more individual mining stocks begin to beat their underlying metals again—and whether that improvement persists beyond a single week.
Methodology: 151 weekly observations, December 1, 2023–October 16, 2026, from Weekly Analysis summary histories. Weekly historical analysis of the GDX–GDXJ and SIL–SILJ universes. Each stock's return is compared with GLD or SLV over the same observation window. A stock counts as outperforming only when its return exceeds the reference ETF's return. Benchmark and sector ETFs are excluded from the mining-stock comparison sample. The four windows are one week, four weeks, approximately three months, and year to date. These figures are cross-sectional participation measures, not portfolio returns or predictive trading signals. Historical percentiles are empirical ranks within this 151-week sample; consecutive four-week windows overlap, and universe membership and coverage may change over time. Comparisons across the two universes describe participation versus different benchmarks, not direct stock-return differences. Research only; not investment advice.