SI=F vs. PL=F
SI=F (Silver) and PL=F (Platinum) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, SI=F returned 16.53%/yr vs 6.61%/yr for PL=F. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.
Performance
SI=F vs. PL=F - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SI=F achieves a 7.02% return, which is significantly higher than PL=F's -8.48% return. Over the past 10 years, SI=F has outperformed PL=F with an annualized return of 16.53%, while PL=F has yielded a comparatively lower 6.61% annualized return.
SI=F
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- 2.77%
- YTD
- 7.02%
- 6M
- 28.89%
- 1Y
- 118.16%
- 3Y*
- 46.86%
- 5Y*
- 22.41%
- 10Y*
- 16.53%
PL=F
- 1D
- -3.13%
- 1M
- -4.36%
- YTD
- -8.48%
- 6M
- 12.41%
- 1Y
- 73.81%
- 3Y*
- 22.88%
- 5Y*
- 9.84%
- 10Y*
- 6.61%
SI=F vs. PL=F - Yearly Performance Comparison
Correlation
The correlation between SI=F and PL=F is 0.57, 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 | 0.57 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 27, 2009 | 0.61 |
The correlation between SI=F and PL=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
SI=F vs. PL=F — Risk / Return Rank
SI=F
PL=F
SI=F vs. PL=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Silver (SI=F) and Platinum (PL=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.
| SI=F | PL=F | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.53 | 1.31 | +0.22 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.92 | 1.70 | +0.21 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | 1.26 | +0.07 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.22 | 1.99 | +0.23 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.79 | 4.03 | +0.76 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SI=F | PL=F | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | 1.31 | +0.22 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 | 0.28 | +0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.47 | 0.21 | +0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.22 | 0.10 | +0.12 |
Drawdowns
SI=F vs. PL=F - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SI=F drawdown since its inception was -91.54%, which is greater than PL=F's maximum drawdown of -68.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SI=F and PL=F.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SI=F | PL=F | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -91.54% | -68.68% | -22.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -41.21% | -35.55% | -5.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -41.21% | -35.55% | -5.66% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.21% | -35.55% | -5.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -43.13% | -49.56% | +6.43% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.38% | -34.72% | +0.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -61.04% | -36.40% | -24.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.84% | 17.87% | +2.97% |
Volatility
SI=F vs. PL=F - Volatility Comparison
Silver (SI=F) has a higher volatility of 14.62% compared to Platinum (PL=F) at 11.08%. This indicates that SI=F's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PL=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SI=F | PL=F | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.62% | 11.08% | +3.54% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 60.87% | 48.91% | +11.96% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 60.06% | 54.12% | +5.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 37.96% | 35.61% | +2.35% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.58% | 31.75% | +1.83% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SI=F and PL=F have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SI=F has higher volatility (14.62%) compared to PL=F (11.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SI=F dropped -91.54% vs PL=F's -68.68%.
SI=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 1.31), 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.
Find the right allocation for SI=F and PL=F
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer