GC=F vs. HG=F

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GC=F (Gold) and HG=F (Copper) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, GC=F returned 13.80%/yr vs 12.18%/yr for HG=F. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GC=F vs. HG=F - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GC=F achieves a 4.48% return, which is significantly lower than HG=F's 18.61% return. Over the past 10 years, GC=F has outperformed HG=F with an annualized return of 13.80%, while HG=F has yielded a comparatively lower 12.18% annualized return.

GC=F

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: -2.39%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 6M: 7.94%
• 1Y: 34.08%
• 3Y*: 32.28%
• 5Y*: 19.29%
• 10Y*: 13.80%

HG=F

• 1D: 2.35%
• 1M: 12.57%
• YTD: 18.61%
• 6M: 27.36%
• 1Y: 37.44%
• 3Y*: 21.37%
• 5Y*: 8.38%
• 10Y*: 12.18%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GC=F Gold	4.48%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%
HG=F Copper	18.61%	39.82%	3.50%	2.10%	-14.63%	26.84%	25.81%	6.31%	-20.28%	31.73%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and HG=F is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.28

The correlation between GC=F and HG=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (10 years) to 0.42 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. HG=F — 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: 54
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 45
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 67

HG=F

HG=F Risk / Return Rank: 27
HG=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
HG=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
HG=F Omega Ratio Rank: 39
HG=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
HG=F Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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. HG=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold (GC=F) and Copper (HG=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.

	GC=F	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	0.93	+0.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	1.30	+0.33
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.23	+0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	1.31	+0.73
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	2.70	+2.45
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. HG=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GC=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the HG=F Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GC=F and HG=F, 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	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.25	0.93	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	0.29	+0.76
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.84	0.49	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.21	+0.41

Drawdowns

GC=F vs. HG=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GC=F drawdown since its inception was -44.36%, smaller than the maximum HG=F drawdown of -68.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GC=F and HG=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	HG=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.36%	-68.86%	+24.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.73%	-25.17%	+7.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.73%	-25.17%	+7.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.43%	-34.96%	+14.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.87%	-36.54%	+15.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.03%	0.00%	-15.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.03%	-29.58%	+16.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.01%	12.17%	-5.16%

Volatility

GC=F vs. HG=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gold (GC=F) is 5.37%, while Copper (HG=F) has a volatility of 8.83%. This indicates that GC=F experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HG=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	HG=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.37%	8.83%	-3.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.05%	21.91%	+1.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.56%	35.53%	-8.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.21%	26.89%	-8.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.44%	23.67%	-7.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GC=F and HG=F have a correlation of 0.40, 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 HG=F?

HG=F has higher volatility (8.83%) compared to GC=F (5.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GC=F dropped -44.36% vs HG=F's -68.86%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.93), 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.