AMZZ vs. PLTM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMZZ (GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF) and PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - AMZZ is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while PLTM is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt). AMZZ is actively managed, while PLTM is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZZ returned 25.28% vs 71.85% for PLTM. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMZZ charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PLTM.

Performance

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) and GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMZZ achieves a 9.44% return, which is significantly higher than PLTM's -9.33% return.

AMZZ

• 1D: -5.02%
• 1M: -16.12%
• YTD: 9.44%
• 6M: 7.26%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PLTM

• 1D: -3.82%
• 1M: -4.28%
• YTD: -9.33%
• 6M: 11.67%
• 1Y: 71.85%
• 3Y*: 22.22%
• 5Y*: 9.22%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AMZZ GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF	9.44%	-8.94%	38.36%
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-9.33%	124.46%	-1.36%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZZ and PLTM is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2024	0.13

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMZZ	PLTM
Consumer Cyclical	66.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	100.0%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AMZZ vs. PLTM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AMZZ

AMZZ Risk / Return Rank: 17
AMZZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
AMZZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
AMZZ Omega Ratio Rank: 19
AMZZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
AMZZ Martin Ratio Rank: 15

PLTM

PLTM Risk / Return Rank: 36
PLTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
PLTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
PLTM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
PLTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
PLTM Martin Ratio Rank: 30

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) and GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AMZZ	PLTM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	1.41	-0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.99	1.80	-0.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.26	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	2.09	-1.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.37	4.43	-3.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the PLTM Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZZ and PLTM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMZZ	PLTM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43	1.41	-0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.24	+0.01

Drawdowns

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZZ drawdown since its inception was -55.28%, which is greater than PLTM's maximum drawdown of -42.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZZ and PLTM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZZ	PLTM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.28%	-42.32%	-12.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.97%	-34.52%	-7.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-34.52%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.02%	-33.02%	+15.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.21%	-18.55%	-1.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.49%	16.28%	+2.21%

Volatility

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) has a higher volatility of 14.66% compared to GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) at 10.88%. This indicates that AMZZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PLTM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMZZ	PLTM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.66%	10.88%	+3.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.44%	45.45%	-5.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.66%	51.40%	+8.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.82%	32.83%	+29.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.82%	30.98%	+31.84%

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZZ has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than PLTM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMZZ vs. PLTM - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMZZ nor PLTM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMZZ and PLTM in my portfolio?

AMZZ and PLTM have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZZ or PLTM?

AMZZ has higher volatility (14.66%) compared to PLTM (10.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZZ dropped -55.28% vs PLTM's -42.32%.

Which ETF is better, AMZZ or PLTM?

On 1-year performance, PLTM leads with 71.85% vs 25.28% for AMZZ. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PLTM has been the lower-risk option at 10.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZZ or PLTM?

Over the 1-year period, PLTM has performed better with a 71.85% return vs 25.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZZ or PLTM?

PLTM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for AMZZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMZZ or PLTM?

AMZZ and PLTM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between AMZZ and PLTM?

AMZZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while PLTM is Precious Metals. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for AMZZ and 0.50% for PLTM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PLTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 0.43), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.