Skip to content
etf.net

CTWO vs PLTM

COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust

CTWO—NYSE Arca

GraniteShares Platinum Trust

PLTMBNYSE Arca

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Expense ratio

PLTM −0.29pt a year

CTWO0.79%PLTM0.50%

Avg volume · 30D

PLTM 155.2×the volume

CTWO889PLTM138K

CTWO vs PLTM Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Oct 30, 2026

+8.3%CTWO−9.2%PLTM

Oct 31, 2025 to Oct 30, 2026. CTWO +8.3%. PLTM −9.2%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.20%40%60%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
CTWO 0.79%
PLTM 0.50%, better
Fund size
CTWO $2M
PLTM $150M
1Y total return
CTWO +8.3%, better
PLTM −9.2%
Yield (12M)
CTWO No data
PLTM 0.00%
Holdings
CTWO 2
PLTM 1
Avg volume (30D)
CTWO 889 sh
PLTM 138K sh, better
NAV per share
CTWO $19.60
PLTM $14.20
52W range

ETF.net Grade

  • —CTWOUnder classification review
PLTM: Cost 67, Risk 44, Mission 94, Tradability 42, Holdings not scored, Durability 43.
Pillar letters and Scores for CTWO, PLTM, with each pillar’s weight
PillarCTWOPLTM
Cost30% weightNot scoredB67
Mission25% weightNot scoredA94
Risk15% weightNot scoredC44
Tradability15% weightNot scoredC42
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightNot scoredC43

Rank among Physical Commodities funds

How we build Categories ›

Physical Commodities⁠

Category · 9 funds
See all 9 ›

PLTM ranks 3rd of 9 funds in the Physical Commodities Category.

  1. Rank 1ASIVRabrdn Physical Silver Shares ETFScore 74
  2. Rank 2BSLViShares Silver TrustScore 69
  3. Rank 3BPLTMGraniteShares Platinum TrustScore 65
  4. Rank 4BGLTRabrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETFScore 63
  5. CTWONot yet graded

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CTWO—COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust

PLTMBGraniteShares Platinum Trust

In short

CTWO No data

PLTM Platinum, in a vault, sliced into shares. PLTM holds allocated bullion and charges 0.50% a year, undercutting the older platinum trust on fee, which is most of what separates two funds holding the same metal.

Stated mandate

CTWO No data

PLTM The Trust seeks to reflect the price of platinum, less its expenses, through allocated physical platinum bullion.

Why people hold it

CTWO No data

  • PLTM At 0.50% a year it is the cheaper of the two US physical platinum trusts, and it sits under the median fee for physical commodity funds.
  • Allocated bars, not futures contracts: no roll calendar, no contango math, just platinum held for the trust.graniteshares.com
  • Simple mandate kept tightly since its 2018 launch: the platinum price less expenses, and one of the closer trackers among physical metal funds.

Worth knowing

CTWO No data

  • PLTM One metal, one line of exposure. Platinum moves in its own lane and can swing hard, with nothing else inside the fund to cushion it.
  • No income here. Expenses are met out of the metal, so each share represents a slightly smaller slice of platinum as the years pass.
  • Volume is moderate rather than mega-trust deep, so spreads and limit orders matter more when you trade in size.

Full CTWO profile⁠

Full PLTM profile⁠

CTWO vs PLTM Holdings

How CTWO and PLTM differ

Overlap by weight

0.0%

Shared holdings make up 0.0% of CTWO and 0.0% of PLTM.

Level by level

  • Holdings0 in both0.0%
  • Asset classCommodities100%

Sector

No Sector split for CTWO and PLTM.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

No country split for CTWO and PLTM.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

  • CTWO100.0%
  • PLTM100.0%

Securities held

  • CTWO1
  • PLTM1

Asset class

CTWO
Commodities
PLTM
Commodities

Holdings

  • Only in CTWO1
  • In both0
  • Only in PLTM1

Only in CTWO

1 security, 0.9% of CTWO by weight

  • SSC Government Money Market0.87%

Only in PLTM

1 security, 100% of PLTM by weight

  • Physical Platinum100.00%

Weight gaps

CTWO and PLTM share no securities.

All 2 CTWO holdings⁠All PLTM holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CTWO vs PLTM Cost

Overpaying CTWO vs PLTM

$5,195

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • CTWO 0.79%

    $15,174

  • PLTM 0.50%

    $9,979

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • CTWO 0.79%
  • PLTM 0.50%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530CTWO $15,174PLTM $9,979

Year by year

YearCTWOPLTMOverpaying
10$1,405$900$505
20$5,331$3,460$1,871
30$15,174$9,979$5,195

Expense ratio

  • 0.79%CTWO
  • 0.50%PLTM, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Commodities funds
  • Median 0.60%

PLTM 3rd cheapest of 9 funds

CTWO 9th cheapest of 9 funds

CTWO vs PLTM Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Yield (12M)
CTWO No data
PLTM 0.00%
Payout (12M)
CTWO None
PLTM None

Distribution history

Per share, 2010 to 2015, same scale for both

CTWOAll CTWO payments⁠

No distribution history available.

PLTM13 paymentsAll PLTM payments⁠
One bar per payment. 13 payments from 2010 to 2015. Jun 22, 2010 $0.08; Dec 21, 2010 $0.04; Jun 21, 2011 $0.02; Dec 21, 2011 $0.24; Sep 21, 2012 $0.04; Dec 21, 2012 $0.02; Mar 21, 2013 $0.005; Sep 20, 2013 $0.01; Dec 18, 2013 $0.19; Mar 25, 2014 $0.04; Jun 24, 2014 $0.07; Dec 23, 2014 $0.17; Jun 24, 2015 $0.02. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$0.2520122015

CTWO vs PLTM Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
CTWO 23.6%since Jul 2025PLTM 33.0%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
CTWO 0.54since Jul 2025PLTM 0.44
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
CTWO −30.1%since Jun 2025PLTM −48.4%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
CTWO 1.28PLTM 0.55

CTWO and PLTM in the news

All news⁠

Popular comparisons

  • CTWO—vsSIVRA

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.30%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • PLTMBvsSIVRA

    GraniteShares Platinum Trust · abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.30%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CTWO—vsSLVB

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · iShares Silver Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • PLTMBvsSLVB

    GraniteShares Platinum Trust · iShares Silver Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CTWO—vsGLTRB

    COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust · abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.79% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • PLTMBvsGLTRB

    GraniteShares Platinum Trust · abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.