PLTM vs. SLVR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PLTM (GraniteShares Platinum Trust) and SLVR (Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PLTM is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while SLVR is a Silver fund tracking the Nasdaq Sprott Silver Miners™ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, PLTM returned 71.85% vs 118.11% for SLVR. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PLTM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SLVR.

Performance

PLTM vs. SLVR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF (SLVR). 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 SLVR's 6.80% return.

PLTM

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

SLVR

• 1D: -5.47%
• 1M: 1.96%
• YTD: 6.80%
• 6M: 18.93%
• 1Y: 118.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PLTM vs. SLVR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	-9.33%	116.81%
SLVR Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF	6.80%	170.44%

Correlation

The correlation between PLTM and SLVR is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2025	0.65

The correlation between PLTM and SLVR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PLTM vs. SLVR — 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

SLVR

SLVR Risk / Return Rank: 51
SLVR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
SLVR Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
SLVR Omega Ratio Rank: 48
SLVR Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
SLVR Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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. SLVR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) and Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF (SLVR). 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	SLVR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	1.93	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	2.25	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.31	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	3.08	-0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.43	7.66	-3.24
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. SLVR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PLTM Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is comparable to the SLVR Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PLTM and SLVR, 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	SLVR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	1.93	-0.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	2.02	-1.78

Drawdowns

PLTM vs. SLVR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLTM drawdown since its inception was -42.32%, which is greater than SLVR's maximum drawdown of -38.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLTM and SLVR.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLTM	SLVR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.32%	-38.60%	-3.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.52%	-38.60%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.52%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.02%	-28.51%	-4.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.55%	-9.24%	-9.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.28%	15.47%	+0.81%

Volatility

PLTM vs. SLVR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares Platinum Trust (PLTM) is 10.88%, while Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF (SLVR) has a volatility of 19.31%. This indicates that PLTM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLVR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PLTM	SLVR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.88%	19.31%	-8.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.45%	51.02%	-5.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.40%	61.64%	-10.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.83%	57.85%	-25.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.98%	57.85%	-26.87%

PLTM vs. SLVR - Expense Ratio Comparison

PLTM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than SLVR's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

PLTM vs. SLVR - Dividend Comparison

PLTM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SLVR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.45%.

Position	TTM	2025
PLTM GraniteShares Platinum Trust	0.00%	0.00%
SLVR Sprott Silver Miners & Physical Silver ETF	3.45%	3.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLTM and SLVR in my portfolio?

PLTM and SLVR have a correlation of 0.66, 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 SLVR?

SLVR has higher volatility (19.31%) compared to PLTM (10.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PLTM dropped -42.32% vs SLVR's -38.60%.

Which ETF is better, PLTM or SLVR?

On 1-year performance, SLVR leads with 118.11% vs 71.85% for PLTM. On fees, PLTM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PLTM has been the lower-risk option at 10.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PLTM or SLVR?

Over the 1-year period, SLVR has performed better with a 118.11% return vs 71.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLTM or SLVR?

PLTM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLVR.

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

SLVR has the higher dividend yield at 3.45%, compared with 0.00% for PLTM.

What is the main difference between PLTM and SLVR?

PLTM is categorized as Precious Metals, while SLVR is Silver. PLTM tracks Platinum London PM Fix ($/ozt), while SLVR tracks Nasdaq Sprott Silver Miners™ Index. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PLTM and 0.65% for SLVR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SLVR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 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.