GC=F vs. TRET.AS

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset, while TRET.AS (VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF) is REIT fund tracking the FTSE EPRA Nareit Global TR USD. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

GC=F vs. TRET.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold Futures (GC=F) and VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (TRET.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GC=F is traded in USD, while TRET.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the TRET.AS values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

GC=F

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

TRET.AS

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -3.96%
• YTD: 3.96%
• 6M: 4.02%
• 1Y: 10.54%
• 3Y*: 10.72%
• 5Y*: 2.28%
• 10Y*: 3.80%

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

GC=F vs. TRET.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.91%
TRET.AS VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF	3.96%	14.63%	1.52%	12.54%	-21.10%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and TRET.AS is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2022	-0.05

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. TRET.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRET.AS

TRET.AS Risk / Return Rank: 22
TRET.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
TRET.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
TRET.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 20
TRET.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
TRET.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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. TRET.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (TRET.AS). 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.

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

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GC=F	TRET.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	-0.00	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	TRET.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-99.23%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-10.47%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.94%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-97.88%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-96.83%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.97%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	TRET.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.71%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	9.52%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	12.28%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	16.44%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	17.32%	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GC=F and TRET.AS in my portfolio?

GC=F and TRET.AS have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.