NOWL vs. PLTM
NOWL (GraniteShares 2x Long NOW Daily ETF) and PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - NOWL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while PLTM is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt). NOWL is actively managed, while PLTM is passively managed. Over the past year, NOWL returned -76.52% vs 24.86% for PLTM. Their 0.02 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. NOWL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PLTM.
Performance
NOWL vs. PLTM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NOWL achieves a -63.41% return, which is significantly lower than PLTM's -19.56% return.
NOWL
- 1D
- 2.14%
- 1M
- 5.43%
- 6M
- -34.34%
- YTD
- -63.41%
- 1Y
- -76.52%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -77.99%
PLTM
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- 2.06%
- 6M
- -22.81%
- YTD
- -19.56%
- 1Y
- 24.86%
- 3Y*
- 20.37%
- 5Y*
- 8.97%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.60%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $112.35M | $97.45M | $114.36M | |
| $1.27M | $1.47M | $3.03M |
NOWL vs. PLTM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NOWL GraniteShares 2x Long NOW Daily ETF | -63.41% | -43.64% |
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust | -19.56% | 50.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between NOWL and PLTM is 0.01, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2025 | 0.02 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NOWL vs. PLTM — Risk / Return Rank
NOWL
PLTM
NOWL vs. PLTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long NOW Daily ETF (NOWL) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| NOWL | PLTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.86 | 1.14 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.92 | 0.62 | -1.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.34 | 1.20 | -2.54 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NOWL vs. PLTM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NOWL drawdown since its inception was -86.64%, which is greater than PLTM's maximum drawdown of -44.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NOWL and PLTM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NOWL | PLTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -86.64% | -44.07% | -42.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -85.16% | -44.07% | -41.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -44.07% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -44.07% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -80.50% | -40.58% | -39.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -52.61% | -18.95% | -33.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 58.33% | 22.75% | +35.58% |
Volatility
NOWL vs. PLTM - Volatility Comparison
GraniteShares 2x Long NOW Daily ETF (NOWL) has a higher volatility of 34.79% compared to GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) at 9.19%. This indicates that NOWL'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NOWL | PLTM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 34.79% | 9.19% | +25.60% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 98.80% | 38.75% | +60.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 108.39% | 50.54% | +57.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 106.58% | 33.15% | +73.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 106.58% | 31.14% | +75.44% |
NOWL vs. PLTM - Expense Ratio Comparison
NOWL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than PLTM's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
NOWL vs. PLTM - Dividend Comparison
Neither NOWL nor PLTM has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOWL and PLTM have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NOWL has higher volatility (34.79%) compared to PLTM (9.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NOWL dropped -86.64% vs PLTM's -44.07%.
On 1-year performance, PLTM leads with 24.86% vs -76.52% for NOWL. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PLTM has been the lower-risk option at 9.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, PLTM has performed better with a 24.86% return vs -76.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PLTM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for NOWL.
NOWL and PLTM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
NOWL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while PLTM is Precious Metals. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for NOWL and 0.50% for PLTM.
PLTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.54 vs -0.72), 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.
Find the right allocation for NOWL and PLTM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer