GC=F vs. SI=F

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) and SI=F (Silver Futures) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, GC=F returned 11.63%/yr vs 10.83%/yr for SI=F. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently.

Performance

GC=F vs. SI=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold Futures (GC=F) and Silver Futures (SI=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 -5.25% return, which is significantly higher than SI=F's -17.62% return. Over the past 10 years, GC=F has outperformed SI=F with an annualized return of 11.63%, while SI=F has yielded a comparatively lower 10.83% annualized return.

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%

SI=F

• 1D: -1.77%
• 1M: -4.73%
• 6M: -26.20%
• YTD: -17.62%
• 1Y: 57.05%
• 3Y*: 33.64%
• 5Y*: 17.75%
• 10Y*: 10.83%
• ALL TIME*: 9.95%

*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
SI=F Silver Futures	$174.90K	$95.56K	$68.34K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GC=F Gold Futures	-5.25%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%
SI=F Silver Futures	-17.62%	142.34%	21.33%	-0.04%	2.29%	-11.41%	47.70%	15.52%	-9.54%	7.05%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and SI=F is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.76
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.77

The correlation between GC=F and SI=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. SI=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

SI=F

SI=F Risk / Return Rank: 37
SI=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
SI=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
SI=F Omega Ratio Rank: 62
SI=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
SI=F Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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. SI=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and Silver Futures (SI=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	SI=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	0.89	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	1.40	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.22	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.98	1.13	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.17	2.18	-0.01

GC=F vs. SI=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GC=F Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is comparable to the SI=F Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GC=F and SI=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.

Drawdowns

GC=F vs. SI=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GC=F drawdown since its inception was -44.36%, smaller than the maximum SI=F drawdown of -75.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GC=F and SI=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	SI=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.36%	-75.85%	+31.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.06%	-51.43%	+26.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.06%	-51.43%	+26.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.06%	-51.43%	+26.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.06%	-51.43%	+26.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.94%	-49.80%	+26.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.58%	-36.22%	+22.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.31%	26.71%	-15.40%

Volatility

GC=F vs. SI=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gold Futures (GC=F) is 6.13%, while Silver Futures (SI=F) has a volatility of 11.20%. This indicates that GC=F experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SI=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	SI=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.13%	11.20%	-5.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.41%	55.38%	-31.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.14%	65.35%	-37.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.65%	39.17%	-20.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.66%	34.43%	-17.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GC=F and SI=F have a correlation of 0.82, 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 SI=F?

SI=F has higher volatility (11.20%) compared to GC=F (6.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GC=F dropped -44.36% vs SI=F's -75.85%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SI=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.89 vs 0.87), 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.