PLTM vs. GLTR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) and GLTR (Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - PLTM tracks the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt) while GLTR tracks the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PLTM returned 9.22%/yr vs 15.32%/yr for GLTR. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PLTM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GLTR.

Performance

PLTM vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PLTM achieves a -9.33% return, which is significantly lower than GLTR's 1.47% return.

PLTM

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

GLTR

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 6M: 10.73%
• 1Y: 53.06%
• 3Y*: 32.36%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 13.17%

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

PLTM vs. GLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-9.33%	124.46%	-8.91%	-8.10%	10.83%	-10.52%	10.87%	20.76%	-20.48%
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	1.47%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	-3.95%

Correlation

The correlation between PLTM and GLTR is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2018	0.67

The correlation between PLTM and GLTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PLTM vs. GLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 36
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

PLTM vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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.

	PLTM	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	1.42	-0.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	1.73	+0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.29	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	1.80	+0.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.43	4.13	+0.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PLTM vs. GLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PLTM Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is comparable to the GLTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PLTM and GLTR, 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

	PLTM	GLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	1.42	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	0.65	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.64	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	0.32	-0.09

Drawdowns

PLTM vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLTM drawdown since its inception was -42.32%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLTM and GLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLTM	GLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.32%	-55.70%	+13.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.52%	-29.70%	-4.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.52%	-29.70%	-4.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.52%	-29.70%	-4.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-29.70%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.02%	-26.86%	-6.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.55%	-28.83%	+10.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.28%	12.88%	+3.40%

Volatility

PLTM vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) has a higher volatility of 10.88% compared to Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) at 9.13%. This indicates that PLTM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PLTM	GLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.88%	9.13%	+1.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.45%	35.41%	+10.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.40%	37.58%	+13.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.83%	23.63%	+9.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.98%	20.50%	+10.48%

PLTM vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PLTM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

PLTM vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison

Neither PLTM nor GLTR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLTM and GLTR in my portfolio?

PLTM and GLTR have a correlation of 0.73, 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 GLTR?

PLTM has higher volatility (10.88%) compared to GLTR (9.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PLTM dropped -42.32% vs GLTR's -55.70%.

Which ETF is better, PLTM or GLTR?

On 5-year performance, GLTR leads with 15.32% vs 9.22% for PLTM. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, GLTR has been the lower-risk option at 9.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PLTM or GLTR?

Over the 5-year period, GLTR has performed better with a 15.32% return vs 9.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLTM or GLTR?

PLTM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

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

What is the main difference between PLTM and GLTR?

PLTM tracks Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PLTM and 0.60% for GLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 1.41), 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.