GC=F vs. BZ=F

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) and BZ=F (Brent Crude Oil Last Day Financial Futures) are both assets. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.

Performance

GC=F vs. BZ=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold Futures (GC=F) and Brent Crude Oil Last Day Financial Futures (BZ=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GC=F

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.34%
• 6M: -13.05%
• YTD: -5.25%
• 1Y: 22.43%
• 3Y*: 28.30%
• 5Y*: 17.72%
• 10Y*: 11.63%
• ALL TIME*: 11.00%

BZ=F

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

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GC=F Gold Futures	$116.79M	$56.64M	$28.60M

GC=F vs. BZ=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GC=F Gold Futures	-5.25%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	1.95%
BZ=F Brent Crude Oil Last Day Financial Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	20.59%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and BZ=F is 0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	0.08

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. BZ=F — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GC=F

GC=F Risk / Return Rank: 3
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 13

BZ=F

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

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and Brent Crude Oil Last Day Financial Futures (BZ=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.

	GC=F	BZ=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.98	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.17	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	BZ=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.94%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.58%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.31%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	BZ=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.13%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.41%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.14%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.65%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.66%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GC=F and BZ=F have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.