Silver mining stocks are up 124% over the past year, platinum is up 89%, and palladium has recovered 48% after years of steep losses. Now all three are pulling back hard, with the VIX near 26.8 and up about 37% over the past month. The question is whether these three ETFs are worth holding through the turbulence, and the answer depends almost entirely on which one you own and why.
Physical Platinum With No Equity Noise: GraniteShares Platinum Trust
GraniteShares Platinum Trust (NYSEARCA:PLTM) holds physical platinum bullion directly. There are no mining companies, no management teams, no operational risks layered in. When platinum moves, PLTM moves with it.
That directness comes with a track record worth understanding. Over the past year, the fund gained 89%, a run driven by platinum’s industrial and investment demand. The picture in 2026 has been rougher: PLTM is down about 9% year-to-date, and the past month alone saw a decline of roughly 14%. Platinum’s dual role as both an industrial metal (used heavily in catalytic converters and hydrogen fuel cells) and a store of value means it responds to both manufacturing demand signals and broader risk sentiment.
The fund carries a 0.5% expense ratio and has $330 million in net assets, making it a reasonably liquid vehicle for a niche commodity. It launched in January 2018 and pays no dividend, since physical metal generates no income.
The tradeoff is volatility with no operational buffer. A mining company can cut costs or find new ore bodies to improve its position even when metal prices fall. Physical platinum offers no such cushion. You own the commodity, and the commodity’s price is the only thing driving returns.
Silver Miners Offer Leverage to the Metal Itself
iShares MSCI Global Silver and Metals Miners ETF (NYSEARCA:SLVP) takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than holding silver directly, it holds the equities of companies that mine silver and related metals globally. This matters because mining stocks typically amplify the underlying metal’s moves in both directions.
The fund tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Silver Miners Investable Market Index and has been around since January 2012, giving it more than a decade of history across multiple commodity cycles. With $1.4 billion in net assets, it is the largest fund on this list, more than four times the size of PALL by assets.
The portfolio holds roughly 50 positions across multiple countries, with the top three holdings (Hecla Mining at about 14.2%, Industrias Penoles at 10.4%, and Fresnillo at 10.3%) representing nearly a third of the fund. That concentration means a few large miners drive an outsized share of performance, so stock-specific events at Hecla, Penoles, or Fresnillo can move the whole fund. Holdings span Canada, Mexico, Australia, China, and South Africa, so currency and geopolitical exposure are real factors alongside silver prices.
The expense ratio is 0.39%, one of the lower costs available for this kind of equity-based precious metals exposure. The one-year return of 124% reflects how aggressively mining equities can run when metals prices rise. The five-year return of 133% and ten-year return of 372% show the long-run compounding potential of owning producers rather than the metal itself.
The downside of that leverage is equally sharp. Over the past month, SLVP fell roughly 24%, nearly double the pullback seen in the physical metal funds. Mining equities carry company-specific risks — labor disputes, permitting delays, hedging decisions, and management execution — that physical metal does not. Investors choosing SLVP are accepting a more complex risk profile in exchange for the potential for higher long-run returns.
Palladium’s Industrial Story, Held in Physical Form
abrdn Palladium ETF Trust (NYSEARCA:PALL) is the oldest fund on this list, having launched in January 2010. Like PLTM, it holds physical palladium bullion directly and charges a 0.6% expense ratio. With $1.2 billion in net assets, it is well-established and liquid for a single-commodity vehicle.
Palladium is primarily an industrial metal, with the majority of global demand coming from gasoline-powered vehicle catalytic converters. That demand profile makes it distinctly different from platinum or silver. Palladium does not carry the same safe-haven investment narrative that drives gold or silver during periods of market stress. Its price is more directly tied to auto production volumes and the pace of the global transition away from internal combustion engines.
That dynamic explains the five-year return of negative 48%, a steep contrast to the one-year gain of 48%. Palladium peaked at extreme prices earlier this decade when supply from Russia (a dominant producer) was constrained, then declined sharply as auto demand softened and platinum began substituting for palladium in some catalytic applications. The recent one-year recovery suggests some stabilization in industrial demand, but electric vehicle adoption continues to erode the long-run market for gasoline catalytic converters, and palladium’s price reflects that structural pressure.
Year-to-date, PALL is down about 11%, and the past month saw a pullback of nearly 19%. Investors considering PALL are making a specific bet on industrial demand holding up, not on precious metals as a broad safe-haven category.
How These Three Funds Actually Differ From Each Other
The most important distinction is between equity exposure and physical metal exposure. SLVP owns mining companies, which means its returns depend on management decisions, operating costs, and balance sheet health in addition to silver prices. That is why it gained 124% over the past year but also fell roughly 24% in a single month. The leverage runs both ways.
PLTM and PALL are simpler instruments. They track their metals directly, with no company-level variables in the mix. The tradeoff is that there is no operational upside when conditions improve, only the metal’s price movement.
PALL stands apart from the other two because its demand story is almost entirely industrial. Investors in PALL are making a specific call on gasoline-powered vehicle production holding up long enough to justify the position, not on precious metals as a broad category.