GC=F vs. BLV

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

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

Performance

GC=F vs. BLV - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GC=F

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

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%

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

GC=F vs. BLV - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and BLV 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. BLV — 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.

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

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. BLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV). 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	BLV	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

	GC=F	BLV	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

	GC=F	BLV	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 GC=F and BLV in my portfolio?

GC=F and BLV 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.