Cite This Comparison
"Silver vs Platinum (XAG vs XPT): Returns, Risk & Volatility (2025)." Gale Finance, December 31, 2025. https://www.gale.finance/compare/xag-vs-xpt-2025 Free to use with attribution. Please link back to this page or gale.finance.
Analysis period: 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31
Relative Performance of XAG vs XPT (Normalized to 100)
Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison
Key Takeaways
- Total Return: XAG delivered a +142.3% total return, while XPT returned +123.1% over the same period. XAG outperformed on total returns.
- Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): XAG had a higher Sharpe (2.78 vs 2.32), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
- Volatility (Annualized): XPT was more volatile, with 34.7% annualized volatility, versus 31.6% for XAG.
- Maximum Drawdown: XAG's maximum drawdown was -13.6%, while XPT experienced a deeper drawdown of -14.9%.
Silver vs Platinum Correlation
Silver and Platinum were strongly correlated in 2025. With a correlation of 0.65, these assets tended to move together, limiting diversification benefits.
For portfolio construction, this strong correlation means holding both XAG and XPT provides limited risk reduction — they're likely to decline together in downturns.
| Metric | Metric | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Current (30-day) | 0.77 | |
| Average (full period) | 0.65 | |
| Minimum | 0.12 | |
| Maximum | 0.90 |
Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement.
Investment Comparison
If you invested $10,000 in each asset on January 1, 2025:
Difference: $1,920.726 (XAG ahead)
Silver and Platinum: Risk Analysis
Silver experienced its maximum drawdown of -13.6% from 2025-03-27 to 2025-04-04. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.
Platinum experienced its maximum drawdown of -14.9% from 2025-12-26 to 2025-12-31. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.
Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.
Sharpe Ratio of XAG and XPT
Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. XAG had a higher Sharpe (2.78 vs 2.32), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).
Sortino Ratio of XAG and XPT
Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only penalizes negative volatility. XAG had better downside-adjusted returns.
A higher Sortino is better. It's particularly useful for assets with asymmetric volatility (big gains, smaller losses). Downside volatility: XAG 23.1% vs XPT 27.8%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).
Full Comparison of Silver vs. Platinum (2025)
| Metric | XAG | XPT |
|---|---|---|
| Total Return | +142.3% | +123.1% |
| Annualized Volatility | 31.6% | 34.7% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.78 | 2.32 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.80 | 2.90 |
| Max Drawdown | -13.6% | -14.9% |
| Avg Correlation to S&P 500 | N/A | N/A |
Silver vs Platinum: Frequently Asked Questions
Which had higher volatility: XAG or XPT?
XPT showed higher volatility at 34.7% annualized, compared to 31.6% for XAG During 2025. Higher volatility meant larger price swings in both directions.
Did XAG provide diversification when held with XPT?
XAG and XPT were strongly correlated in 2025, with an average correlation of 0.65. This strong correlation limited diversification benefits.
Which had better risk-adjusted returns: XAG or XPT?
XAG showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 2.78 versus XPT's 2.32 During 2025.
Could XAG and XPT have been combined in a portfolio?
Yes, though allocation sizing mattered. Their strong correlation provided limited risk reduction since they tended to move together. XPT's higher volatility (34.7%) meant even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.