GC=F vs. GLL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset, while GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) is Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%). Over the past 10 years, GC=F returned 13.66%/yr vs -23.37%/yr for GLL. At a correlation of -0.85, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

GC=F vs. GLL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GC=F achieves a 3.17% return, which is significantly higher than GLL's -14.49% return. Over the past 10 years, GC=F has outperformed GLL with an annualized return of 13.66%, while GLL has yielded a comparatively lower -23.37% annualized return.

GC=F

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: -1.26%
• YTD: 3.17%
• 6M: 6.27%
• 1Y: 33.21%
• 3Y*: 31.73%
• 5Y*: 18.75%
• 10Y*: 13.66%

GLL

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: 3.37%
• YTD: -14.49%
• 6M: -18.72%
• 1Y: -48.24%
• 3Y*: -41.46%
• 5Y*: -28.82%
• 10Y*: -23.37%

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

GC=F vs. GLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GC=F Gold Futures	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	-14.49%	-62.81%	-33.33%	-14.91%	-2.12%	1.66%	-41.47%	-26.95%	5.39%	-23.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and GLL is -0.86, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.90
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2008	-0.85

The correlation between GC=F and GLL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.90 to -0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. GLL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GC=F

GC=F Risk / Return Rank: 52
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 47
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 60

GLL

GLL Risk / Return Rank: 2
GLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
GLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
GLL Omega Ratio Rank: 2
GLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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. GLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). 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.

	GC=F	GLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	-0.92	+2.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.60	-1.50	+3.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	0.83	+0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	-0.74	+2.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.60	-1.16	+5.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GC=F vs. GLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GC=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is higher than the GLL Sharpe Ratio of -0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GC=F and GLL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GC=F	GLL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.22	-0.92	+2.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.03	-0.81	+1.83
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	-0.73	+1.56
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	-0.67	+1.29

Drawdowns

GC=F vs. GLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GC=F drawdown since its inception was -44.36%, smaller than the maximum GLL drawdown of -99.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GC=F and GLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	GLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.36%	-99.24%	+54.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.73%	-65.10%	+47.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.73%	-87.95%	+70.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.43%	-89.76%	+69.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.87%	-95.76%	+74.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.09%	-98.94%	+82.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.03%	-85.13%	+72.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.09%	41.74%	-34.65%

Volatility

GC=F vs. GLL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gold Futures (GC=F) is 5.24%, while ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a volatility of 11.07%. This indicates that GC=F experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	GLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.24%	11.07%	-5.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.04%	44.43%	-21.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.46%	52.38%	-25.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.19%	35.90%	-17.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.44%	32.12%	-15.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GC=F and GLL have a correlation of -0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GC=F or GLL?

GLL has higher volatility (11.07%) compared to GC=F (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GC=F dropped -44.36% vs GLL's -99.24%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs -0.92), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.