Skip to content

PLTM vs SIVR

GraniteShares Platinum Trust

PLTMBNYSE Arca

abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

SIVRANYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

SIVR −0.20pt a year

PLTM0.50%SIVR0.30%

Avg volume · 30D

SIVR 10.7×the volume

PLTM138KSIVR1.47M

5Y return · a year

SIVR +8.7pt

PLTM+6.6%SIVR+15.3%

PLTM vs SIVR Performance

Oct 29, 2021 – Oct 30, 2026

+37.8%PLTM+103.7%SIVR

Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. PLTM +37.8%. SIVR +103.7%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.200%300%400%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026
Expense ratio
PLTM 0.50%
SIVR 0.30%, better
Fund size
PLTM $150M
SIVR $3.45B
1Y total return
PLTM −9.2%
SIVR +1.5%, better
Yield (12M)
PLTM 0.00%
SIVR No data
Holdings
PLTM 1
SIVR 1
Avg volume (30D)
PLTM 138K sh
SIVR 1.47M sh, better
NAV per share
PLTM $14.20
SIVR $47.57
52W range

ETF.net Grade

PLTM: Cost 67, Risk 44, Mission 94, Tradability 42, Holdings not scored, Durability 43. SIVR: Cost 92, Risk 37, Mission 89, Tradability 52, Holdings not scored, Durability 73.
Pillar letters and Scores for PLTM, SIVR, with each pillar’s weight
PillarPLTMSIVR
Cost30% weightB67A92Higher
Mission25% weightA94HigherA89
Risk15% weightC44HigherD37
Tradability15% weightC42C52Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightC43A73Higher

Rank among Physical Commodities funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. PLTM and SIVR are both graded against the same 9 Physical Commodities funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Physical Commodities⁠

Category · 9 funds
See all 9 ›

SIVR ranks 1st and PLTM 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

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

PLTMBGraniteShares Platinum Trust

SIVRAabrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF

In short

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.

SIVR Silver bullion in a vault, wrapped in a ticker. SIVR has done that one job since 2009 at 0.30% a year, half the going rate for physical metal funds, and fee is most of the tracking gap here.

Stated mandate

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

SIVR The Trust seeks to track the price of physical silver, after deducting its expenses.

Why people hold it

  • 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.
  • SIVR 0.30% a year, versus a 0.60% median across physical metal funds and 0.50% at the biggest silver trust, SLV. When the mandate is just holding metal, cost is the differentiator.
  • The mandate is one sentence: track the price of physical silver after expenses. Real metal, not futures contracts, swaps, or miner stocks standing in for the metal.
  • A multi-billion-dollar trust that trades actively, so entering and exiting is usually a routine order rather than a hunt for the other side.
  • Running since 2009 and rated among the strongest implementations in the physical commodity group, on both cost and how closely it delivers its stated mandate.

Worth knowing

  • 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.
  • SIVR One metal, one price. Silver moves hard in both directions and there is no diversification inside the trust to soften it.
  • Bullion generates no cash flow, so this is a price-only holding rather than an income one.
  • It is a commodity trust, not a registered 1940 Act fund, so the legal protections and tax treatment differ from a standard stock or bond ETF.

Full PLTM profile⁠

Full SIVR profile⁠

PLTM vs SIVR 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.

PLTM vs SIVR Cost

Overpaying PLTM vs SIVR

$3,830

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

  • PLTM 0.50%

    $9,979

  • SIVR 0.30%

    $6,149

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • PLTM 0.50%
  • SIVR 0.30%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2K$4K$6K$8K$10K051015202530PLTM $9,979SIVR $6,149

Year by year

YearPLTMSIVROverpaying
10$900$545$355
20$3,460$2,113$1,347
30$9,979$6,149$3,830

Expense ratio

  • 0.50%PLTM
  • 0.30%SIVR, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Commodities funds
  • Median 0.60%

SIVR cheapest of 9 funds

PLTM 3rd cheapest of 9 funds

PLTM vs SIVR Dividends

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

Distribution history

Per share, 2010 to 2015, same scale for both

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
SIVRAll SIVR payments⁠

No distribution history available.

PLTM vs SIVR Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

  • PLTM
  • SIVR
Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. Worst fall: SIVR −57.7% · Oct 2026. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−60%−40%−20%0%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
PLTM 33.0%, betterSIVR 37.0%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
PLTM 0.44SIVR 0.75, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
PLTM −48.4%, betterSIVR −57.7%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
PLTM 0.55SIVR 1.26

PLTM and SIVR in the news

Popular comparisons

  • 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.
  • SIVRAvsSLVB

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · iShares Silver Trust

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.50%
    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.
  • SIVRAvsGLTRB

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • PLTMBvsPPLTB

    GraniteShares Platinum Trust · abrdn Physical Platinum 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.
  • SIVRAvsPPLTB

    abrdn Physical Silver Shares ETF · abrdn Physical Platinum Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.60%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.