GC=F vs. SI=F

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GC=F (Gold) and SI=F (Silver) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, GC=F returned 13.80%/yr vs 16.75%/yr for SI=F. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

GC=F vs. SI=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold (GC=F) and Silver (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 4.48% return, which is significantly lower than SI=F's 9.06% return. Over the past 10 years, GC=F has underperformed SI=F with an annualized return of 13.80%, while SI=F has yielded a comparatively higher 16.75% 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%

SI=F

• 1D: 2.32%
• 1M: 0.74%
• YTD: 9.06%
• 6M: 31.17%
• 1Y: 121.94%
• 3Y*: 47.79%
• 5Y*: 22.87%
• 10Y*: 16.75%

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

GC=F vs. SI=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%
SI=F Silver	9.06%	141.44%	21.41%	0.19%	2.95%	-11.59%	47.38%	15.32%	-9.36%	7.23%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and SI=F is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.69

The correlation between GC=F and SI=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.71 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. SI=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

SI=F

SI=F Risk / Return Rank: 70
SI=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
SI=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
SI=F Omega Ratio Rank: 70
SI=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
SI=F Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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. SI=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	GC=F	SI=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	1.58	-0.33
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	1.95	-0.32
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.33	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	2.52	-0.49
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	4.99	+0.15
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. SI=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GC=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is comparable to the SI=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GC=F	SI=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.25	1.58	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	0.56	+0.50
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.84	0.47	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.22	+0.41

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 -91.54%. 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%	-91.54%	+47.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.73%	-41.21%	+23.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.73%	-41.21%	+23.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.43%	-41.21%	+20.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.87%	-43.13%	+22.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.03%	-33.13%	+18.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.03%	-61.04%	+48.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.01%	20.83%	-13.82%

Volatility

GC=F vs. SI=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gold (GC=F) is 5.37%, while Silver (SI=F) has a volatility of 14.83%. 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	5.37%	14.83%	-9.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.05%	60.91%	-37.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.56%	60.09%	-33.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.21%	37.97%	-19.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.44%	33.59%	-17.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GC=F and SI=F have a correlation of 0.57, 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 (14.83%) compared to GC=F (5.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GC=F dropped -44.36% vs SI=F's -91.54%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SI=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 1.25), 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.