PL=F vs. CL=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PL=F (Platinum) and CL=F (Crude Oil WTI) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, PL=F returned 6.66%/yr vs 6.46%/yr for CL=F. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

PL=F vs. CL=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Platinum (PL=F) and Crude Oil WTI (CL=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PL=F achieves a -6.68% return, which is significantly lower than CL=F's 61.81% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with PL=F having a 6.66% annualized return and CL=F not far behind at 6.46%.

PL=F

• 1D: 1.27%
• 1M: -3.17%
• YTD: -6.68%
• 6M: 14.75%
• 1Y: 74.38%
• 3Y*: 22.36%
• 5Y*: 10.27%
• 10Y*: 6.66%

CL=F

• 1D: -3.24%
• 1M: -9.15%
• YTD: 61.81%
• 6M: 55.71%
• 1Y: 47.83%
• 3Y*: 8.74%
• 5Y*: 6.01%
• 10Y*: 6.46%

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

PL=F vs. CL=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PL=F Platinum	-6.68%	123.45%	-9.78%	-6.81%	12.08%	-10.47%	10.37%	22.13%	-14.68%	3.60%
CL=F Crude Oil WTI	61.81%	-19.41%	-0.82%	-10.70%	7.44%	53.98%	-19.98%	32.92%	-24.35%	12.51%

Correlation

The correlation between PL=F and CL=F is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 26, 2009	0.21

The correlation between PL=F and CL=F shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.21 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PL=F vs. CL=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

PL=F

PL=F Risk / Return Rank: 58
PL=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
PL=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
PL=F Omega Ratio Rank: 57
PL=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PL=F Martin Ratio Rank: 52

CL=F

CL=F Risk / Return Rank: 24
CL=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
CL=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CL=F Omega Ratio Rank: 21
CL=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
CL=F Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

PL=F vs. CL=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Platinum (PL=F) and Crude Oil WTI (CL=F). 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.

	PL=F	CL=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	0.86	+0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	1.35	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.20	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	1.57	+0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.03	2.56	+1.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PL=F vs. CL=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PL=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is higher than the CL=F Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PL=F and CL=F, 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

	PL=F	CL=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.32	0.86	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.15	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.21	0.12	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.10	0.06	+0.04

Drawdowns

PL=F vs. CL=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PL=F drawdown since its inception was -68.68%, smaller than the maximum CL=F drawdown of -92.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PL=F and CL=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	PL=F	CL=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.68%	-92.04%	+23.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.55%	-27.07%	-8.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.55%	-39.46%	+3.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.55%	-53.86%	+18.31%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.56%	-84.82%	+35.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.44%	-36.05%	+2.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.40%	-40.80%	+4.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.98%	12.32%	+5.66%

Volatility

PL=F vs. CL=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Platinum (PL=F) is 10.31%, while Crude Oil WTI (CL=F) has a volatility of 15.67%. This indicates that PL=F experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CL=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PL=F	CL=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.31%	15.67%	-5.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	48.96%	46.59%	+2.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.15%	49.35%	+4.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.63%	38.92%	-3.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.75%	49.55%	-17.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PL=F and CL=F in my portfolio?

PL=F and CL=F have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PL=F or CL=F?

CL=F has higher volatility (15.67%) compared to PL=F (10.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PL=F dropped -68.68% vs CL=F's -92.04%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PL=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.86), 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.