MSFL vs. PLTM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - MSFL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while PLTM is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt). MSFL is actively managed, while PLTM is passively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -25.09% vs 72.14% for PLTM. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PLTM.

Performance

MSFL vs. PLTM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) 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, MSFL achieves a -27.39% return, which is significantly lower than PLTM's -7.60% return.

MSFL

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 6.90%
• YTD: -27.39%
• 6M: -26.98%
• 1Y: -25.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PLTM

• 1D: 1.90%
• 1M: -2.72%
• YTD: -7.60%
• 6M: 14.80%
• 1Y: 72.14%
• 3Y*: 21.98%
• 5Y*: 9.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. PLTM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-27.39%	16.99%	-9.07%
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-7.60%	124.46%	-1.36%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and PLTM is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2024	0.14

MSFL vs. PLTM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MSFL	PLTM
Technology	66.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	100.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. PLTM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 5
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

PLTM

PLTM Risk / Return Rank: 38
PLTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
PLTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
PLTM Omega Ratio Rank: 41
PLTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
PLTM Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

MSFL vs. PLTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) 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.

	MSFL	PLTM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.50	1.41	-1.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.42	1.80	-2.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.26	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.42	2.10	-2.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.82	4.41	-5.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MSFL vs. PLTM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.50, which is lower than the PLTM Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL 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

	MSFL	PLTM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.50	1.41	-1.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.29	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.22	0.24	-0.47

Drawdowns

MSFL vs. PLTM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -59.39%, which is greater than PLTM's maximum drawdown of -42.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and PLTM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	PLTM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.39%	-42.32%	-17.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.39%	-34.52%	-24.87%
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	-43.42%	-31.75%	-11.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.62%	-18.55%	-3.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.73%	16.40%	+14.33%

Volatility

MSFL vs. PLTM - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a higher volatility of 19.76% compared to GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) at 11.07%. This indicates that MSFL'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

	MSFL	PLTM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.76%	11.07%	+8.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.21%	45.47%	-0.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.18%	51.42%	-1.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.55%	32.84%	+16.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.55%	30.98%	+18.57%

MSFL vs. PLTM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MSFL vs. PLTM - Dividend Comparison

Neither MSFL nor PLTM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and PLTM in my portfolio?

MSFL and PLTM have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSFL or PLTM?

MSFL has higher volatility (19.76%) compared to PLTM (11.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -59.39% vs PLTM's -42.32%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or PLTM?

On 1-year performance, PLTM leads with 72.14% vs -25.09% for MSFL. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PLTM has been the lower-risk option at 11.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSFL or PLTM?

Over the 1-year period, PLTM has performed better with a 72.14% return vs -25.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSFL or PLTM?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between MSFL and PLTM?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PLTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs -0.50), 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.