BLV vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BLV (Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF) is Long-Term Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Long Government/Credit Float Adjusted Index, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

BLV vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

BLV

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 1.36%
• YTD: 0.69%
• 6M: 1.11%
• 1Y: 4.70%
• 3Y*: 2.38%
• 5Y*: -3.58%
• 10Y*: 0.92%

GC=F

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

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

BLV vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BLV Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF	0.69%	6.44%	-3.65%	7.35%	-23.85%
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.84%

Correlation

The correlation between BLV and GC=F is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	0.04

Return for Risk

BLV vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLV

BLV Risk / Return Rank: 20
BLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
BLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
BLV Omega Ratio Rank: 18
BLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
BLV Martin Ratio Rank: 20

GC=F

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

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.

BLV vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV) 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.

	BLV	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.82	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.03	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	BLV	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.73%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.83%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.53%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.32%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BLV	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.59%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.78%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.11%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.96%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.99%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

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

BLV and GC=F have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.