ALUM.L vs. HG=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ALUM.L (WisdomTree Aluminium) is Metals fund tracking the Bloomberg Aluminum, while HG=F (Copper) is an asset. Over the past 10 years, ALUM.L returned 6.81%/yr vs 11.90%/yr for HG=F. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Aluminium (ALUM.L) and Copper (HG=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALUM.L achieves a 25.85% return, which is significantly higher than HG=F's 15.98% return. Over the past 10 years, ALUM.L has underperformed HG=F with an annualized return of 6.81%, while HG=F has yielded a comparatively higher 11.90% annualized return.

ALUM.L

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 2.73%
• YTD: 25.85%
• 6M: 29.08%
• 1Y: 52.01%
• 3Y*: 17.40%
• 5Y*: 7.40%
• 10Y*: 6.81%

HG=F

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: 9.87%
• YTD: 15.98%
• 6M: 21.51%
• 1Y: 33.62%
• 3Y*: 20.05%
• 5Y*: 7.58%
• 10Y*: 11.90%

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

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ALUM.L WisdomTree Aluminium	25.85%	17.98%	4.62%	-4.48%	-15.92%	38.11%	1.95%	-3.12%	-18.30%	29.16%
HG=F Copper	15.98%	39.82%	3.50%	2.10%	-14.63%	26.84%	25.81%	6.31%	-20.28%	31.73%

Correlation

The correlation between ALUM.L and HG=F is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2006	0.44

Return for Risk

ALUM.L vs. HG=F — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ALUM.L

ALUM.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
ALUM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
ALUM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
ALUM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
ALUM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
ALUM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 90

HG=F

HG=F Risk / Return Rank: 23
HG=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
HG=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
HG=F Omega Ratio Rank: 35
HG=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
HG=F Martin Ratio Rank: 22

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Aluminium (ALUM.L) and Copper (HG=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.

	ALUM.L	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	0.83	+2.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.88	1.21	+2.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.21	+0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.84	1.17	+4.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.87	2.57	+18.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALUM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is higher than the HG=F Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALUM.L and HG=F, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ALUM.L	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.85	0.83	+2.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32	0.27	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34	0.48	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.11	0.21	-0.32

Drawdowns

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALUM.L drawdown since its inception was -77.63%, which is greater than HG=F's maximum drawdown of -68.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALUM.L and HG=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALUM.L	HG=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-77.63%	-68.86%	-8.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.86%	-25.17%	+16.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.63%	-25.17%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.34%	-34.96%	-12.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-47.34%	-36.54%	-10.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-49.28%	-1.80%	-47.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.59%	-29.58%	-29.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.48%	12.17%	-9.69%

Volatility

ALUM.L vs. HG=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WisdomTree Aluminium (ALUM.L) is 6.12%, while Copper (HG=F) has a volatility of 8.62%. This indicates that ALUM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HG=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALUM.L	HG=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.12%	8.62%	-2.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.69%	21.89%	-6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.20%	35.56%	-17.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.79%	26.87%	-4.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.01%	23.67%	-3.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALUM.L and HG=F in my portfolio?

ALUM.L and HG=F have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.