PLTM vs. FGDL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) and FGDL (Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PLTM is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while FGDL is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PLTM returned 20.37%/yr vs 27.62%/yr for FGDL. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PLTM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FGDL.

Performance

PLTM vs. FGDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PLTM achieves a -19.56% return, which is significantly lower than FGDL's -6.20% return.

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%

FGDL

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: -1.37%
• 6M: -16.26%
• YTD: -6.20%
• 1Y: 20.79%
• 3Y*: 27.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.68%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	$1.02M	$929.90K	$1.28M
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	$1.27M	$1.47M	$3.03M

PLTM vs. FGDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-19.56%	124.46%	-8.91%	-8.10%	16.93%
FGDL Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF	-6.20%	64.15%	27.31%	12.92%	0.72%

Correlation

The correlation between PLTM and FGDL is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2022	0.56

The correlation between PLTM and FGDL shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (all time) to 0.69 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PLTM vs. FGDL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PLTM

PLTM Risk / Return Rank: 24
PLTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
PLTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
PLTM Omega Ratio Rank: 29
PLTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
PLTM Martin Ratio Rank: 19

FGDL

FGDL Risk / Return Rank: 30
FGDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FGDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FGDL Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FGDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FGDL Martin Ratio Rank: 24

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PLTM vs. FGDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL). 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.

	PLTM	FGDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.54	0.80	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.99	1.15	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.17	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	0.85	-0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.20	1.84	-0.63

PLTM vs. FGDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PLTM Sharpe Ratio is 0.54, which is lower than the FGDL Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PLTM and FGDL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

PLTM vs. FGDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLTM drawdown since its inception was -44.07%, which is greater than FGDL's maximum drawdown of -26.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLTM and FGDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLTM	FGDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.07%	-26.58%	-17.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.07%	-26.58%	-17.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-44.07%	-26.58%	-17.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.58%	-25.05%	-15.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.95%	-4.63%	-14.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.75%	12.33%	+10.42%

Volatility

PLTM vs. FGDL - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) has a higher volatility of 9.19% compared to Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF (FGDL) at 6.14%. This indicates that PLTM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FGDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PLTM	FGDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.19%	6.14%	+3.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.75%	23.68%	+15.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.54%	28.25%	+22.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.15%	19.40%	+13.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.14%	19.40%	+11.74%

PLTM vs. FGDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

PLTM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FGDL's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PLTM vs. FGDL - Dividend Comparison

Neither PLTM nor FGDL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLTM and FGDL in my portfolio?

PLTM and FGDL have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PLTM or FGDL?

PLTM has higher volatility (9.19%) compared to FGDL (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PLTM dropped -44.07% vs FGDL's -26.58%.

Which ETF is better, PLTM or FGDL?

On 3-year performance, FGDL leads with 27.62% vs 20.37% for PLTM. On fees, FGDL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FGDL has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PLTM or FGDL?

Over the 3-year period, FGDL has performed better with a 27.62% return vs 20.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLTM or FGDL?

FGDL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PLTM.

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

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

What is the main difference between PLTM and FGDL?

PLTM is categorized as Precious Metals, while FGDL is Gold. PLTM tracks Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while FGDL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PLTM and 0.15% for FGDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.80 vs 0.54), 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.