^SGIXGD5L vs. GC=F

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

^SGIXGD5L (The Gold x5 Leveraged Index) is an index, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Their 0.03 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.

Performance

^SGIXGD5L vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Gold x5 Leveraged Index (^SGIXGD5L) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

^SGIXGD5L

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

GC=F

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.74%
• 6M: -13.05%
• YTD: -5.25%
• 1Y: 24.46%
• 3Y*: 28.30%
• 5Y*: 17.72%
• 10Y*: 11.63%
• ALL TIME*: 11.00%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GC=F Gold Futures	$116.79M	$56.64M	$28.60M

^SGIXGD5L vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
^SGIXGD5L The Gold x5 Leveraged Index	0.00%	0.00%	-2.02%
GC=F Gold Futures	-5.25%	64.52%	-2.56%

Correlation

The correlation between ^SGIXGD5L and GC=F is 0.03, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2024	0.03

Return for Risk

^SGIXGD5L vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

^SGIXGD5L

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GC=F

GC=F Risk / Return Rank: 3
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 13

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

^SGIXGD5L vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Gold x5 Leveraged Index (^SGIXGD5L) and Gold Futures (GC=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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	^SGIXGD5L	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.87	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.22	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.18	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	0.98	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	2.17	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	^SGIXGD5L	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-44.36%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-25.06%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.06%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-25.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-22.94%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-13.58%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	11.31%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	^SGIXGD5L	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.13%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	23.41%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	28.14%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	18.65%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	16.66%	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ^SGIXGD5L and GC=F in my portfolio?

^SGIXGD5L and GC=F have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.