GC=F vs. ^N225

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset, while ^N225 (Nikkei 225) is an index. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GC=F vs. ^N225 - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold Futures (GC=F) and Nikkei 225 (^N225). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GC=F is traded in USD, while ^N225 is traded in JPY. To make them comparable, the ^N225 values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

GC=F

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

^N225

• 1D: 2.63%
• 1M: 6.52%
• YTD: 28.05%
• 6M: 26.30%
• 1Y: 56.89%
• 3Y*: 20.50%
• 5Y*: 9.32%
• 10Y*: 10.66%

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

GC=F vs. ^N225 - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.84%
^N225 Nikkei 225	28.05%	26.56%	7.17%	19.21%	-14.17%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and ^N225 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

GC=F vs. ^N225 — Risk / Return Rank

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

GC=F

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

^N225

^N225 Risk / Return Rank: 95
^N225 Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
^N225 Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
^N225 Omega Ratio Rank: 94
^N225 Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
^N225 Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

GC=F vs. ^N225 - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and Nikkei 225 (^N225). 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.

	GC=F	^N225	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.22	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.13	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.37	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.90	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	12.47	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	^N225	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-52.24%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-14.75%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.78%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.26%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.97%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-3.61%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-13.56%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.53%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	^N225	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	9.05%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	20.93%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	25.86%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	23.83%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	21.57%	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GC=F and ^N225 in my portfolio?

GC=F and ^N225 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.