PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CYN.L vs. GPM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc (CYN.L) and Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd (GPM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CYN.L achieves a 9.44% return, which is significantly lower than GPM.L's 20.74% return. Over the past 10 years, CYN.L has outperformed GPM.L with an annualized return of 20.88%, while GPM.L has yielded a comparatively lower 12.85% annualized return.


CYN.L

1D
-1.06%
1M
-8.00%
YTD
9.44%
6M
20.66%
1Y
97.39%
3Y*
36.00%
5Y*
21.38%
10Y*
20.88%

GPM.L

1D
0.00%
1M
4.61%
YTD
20.74%
6M
31.21%
1Y
95.02%
3Y*
52.90%
5Y*
13.79%
10Y*
12.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CYN.L
CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc
9.44%101.77%16.77%-11.97%30.32%30.33%53.89%5.38%-23.71%0.94%
GPM.L
Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd
20.74%164.79%20.34%-14.24%-19.06%-20.56%69.84%77.46%-44.09%-14.48%

Correlation

The correlation between CYN.L and GPM.L is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.56

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.34

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.29

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.20

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2006

0.14

Over the past year, CYN.L and GPM.L have become more correlated (0.56) than their long-term average of 0.14, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

CYN.L:

£184.83M

GPM.L:

£111.43M

EPS

CYN.L:

£1.09

GPM.L:

£0.91

PE Ratio

CYN.L:

3.43

GPM.L:

1.25

PS Ratio

CYN.L:

21.71

GPM.L:

1.35

PB Ratio

CYN.L:

1.49

GPM.L:

0.89

Total Revenue (TTM)

CYN.L:

£9.81M

GPM.L:

£79.15M

Gross Profit (TTM)

CYN.L:

£17.09M

GPM.L:

£79.06M

EBITDA (TTM)

CYN.L:

£64.77M

GPM.L:

£85.71M

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Often compared with CYN.L:
CYN.L vs. FCIT.L

Return for Risk

CYN.L vs. GPM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CYN.L
CYN.L Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
CYN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CYN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
CYN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
CYN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
CYN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

GPM.L
GPM.L Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
GPM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GPM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
GPM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
GPM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
GPM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc (CYN.L) and Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd (GPM.L). 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.


CYN.LGPM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.41

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.35

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.24

3.97

+0.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.11

9.07

+3.04

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CYN.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the GPM.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CYN.L and GPM.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CYN.LGPM.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.64

2.23

+0.41

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

0.35

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

0.32

+0.45

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.01

+0.30

Drawdowns

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CYN.L drawdown since its inception was -79.15%, smaller than the maximum GPM.L drawdown of -86.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CYN.L and GPM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CYN.LGPM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-79.15%

-86.38%

+7.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-22.95%

-27.61%

+4.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.95%

-27.61%

+4.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.36%

-61.02%

+25.66%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-59.32%

-68.79%

+9.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-13.32%

-10.95%

-2.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.96%

-59.10%

+27.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.05%

12.10%

-4.05%

Volatility

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Volatility Comparison

CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc (CYN.L) and Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd (GPM.L) have volatilities of 8.98% and 9.16%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CYN.LGPM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.98%

9.16%

-0.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.74%

32.86%

-5.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

36.94%

49.10%

-12.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.52%

39.19%

-7.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.89%

39.67%

-12.78%

Dividends

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Dividend Comparison

CYN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.86%, while GPM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CYN.L
CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc
6.86%3.60%3.55%5.21%2.85%3.60%4.52%6.50%6.89%4.65%4.48%6.83%
GPM.L
Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Financials

CYN.L vs. GPM.L - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between CQS Natural Resources Growth and Income plc and Golden Prospect Precious Metals Ltd. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.0020.00M40.00M60.00M80.00M20212022202320242025
2.78M
78.21M
(CYN.L) Total Revenue
(GPM.L) Total Revenue
Values in GBp except per share items

Frequently Asked Questions


CYN.L and GPM.L have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CYN.L and GPM.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer