PLTM vs. PALL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) and PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - PLTM tracks the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt) while PALL tracks the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PLTM returned 10.16%/yr vs -14.07%/yr for PALL. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PLTM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PALL.

Performance

PLTM vs. PALL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PLTM achieves a -5.73% return, which is significantly higher than PALL's -14.19% return.

PLTM

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: -2.41%
• YTD: -5.73%
• 6M: 17.72%
• 1Y: 80.23%
• 3Y*: 23.81%
• 5Y*: 10.16%
• 10Y*: —

PALL

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -9.80%
• YTD: -14.19%
• 6M: -6.85%
• 1Y: 37.57%
• 3Y*: -1.63%
• 5Y*: -14.07%
• 10Y*: 8.91%

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

PLTM vs. PALL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-5.73%	124.46%	-8.91%	-8.10%	10.83%	-10.52%	10.87%	20.76%	-20.48%
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	-14.19%	74.07%	-17.38%	-38.77%	-6.28%	-23.26%	25.27%	53.94%	21.50%

Correlation

The correlation between PLTM and PALL is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2018	0.56

Over the past year, PLTM and PALL have become more correlated (0.77) than their long-term average of 0.56, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

PLTM vs. PALL — Risk / Return Rank

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

PLTM

PLTM Risk / Return Rank: 41
PLTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
PLTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
PLTM Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PLTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
PLTM Martin Ratio Rank: 33

PALL

PALL Risk / Return Rank: 23
PALL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
PALL Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
PALL Omega Ratio Rank: 25
PALL Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
PALL Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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. PALL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL). 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	PALL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	0.76	+0.82
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.93	1.24	+0.69
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.17	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	1.19	+1.19
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.09	2.52	+2.57
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. PALL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PLTM Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the PALL Sharpe Ratio of 0.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PLTM and PALL, 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	PALL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	0.76	+0.82
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31	-0.33	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.19	+0.07

Drawdowns

PLTM vs. PALL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLTM drawdown since its inception was -42.32%, smaller than the maximum PALL drawdown of -73.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLTM and PALL.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLTM	PALL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.32%	-73.63%	+31.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.52%	-34.17%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.52%	-40.64%	+6.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.52%	-73.63%	+39.11%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-73.63%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.36%	-57.71%	+27.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.54%	-26.80%	+8.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.14%	16.09%	+0.05%

Volatility

PLTM vs. PALL - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) has a higher volatility of 10.35% compared to Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) at 9.78%. This indicates that PLTM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PALL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PLTM	PALL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.35%	9.78%	+0.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.30%	41.61%	+3.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.24%	50.02%	+1.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.80%	42.41%	-9.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.96%	37.88%	-6.92%

PLTM vs. PALL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

PLTM vs. PALL - Dividend Comparison

Neither PLTM nor PALL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLTM and PALL in my portfolio?

PLTM and PALL have a correlation of 0.77, 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 PALL?

PLTM has higher volatility (10.35%) compared to PALL (9.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PLTM dropped -42.32% vs PALL's -73.63%.

Which ETF is better, PLTM or PALL?

On 5-year performance, PLTM leads with 10.16% vs -14.07% for PALL. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PALL has been the lower-risk option at 9.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PLTM or PALL?

Over the 5-year period, PLTM has performed better with a 10.16% return vs -14.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLTM or PALL?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between PLTM and PALL?

PLTM tracks Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt). They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PLTM and 0.60% for PALL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PLTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 0.76), 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.