GC=F vs. UCG.MI

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset, while UCG.MI (UniCredit S.p.A.) is a stock. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

GC=F vs. UCG.MI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gold Futures (GC=F) and UniCredit S.p.A. (UCG.MI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GC=F is traded in USD, while UCG.MI is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the UCG.MI 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*: —

UCG.MI

• 1D: 3.99%
• 1M: 0.42%
• YTD: 4.26%
• 6M: 9.65%
• 1Y: 37.05%
• 3Y*: 70.33%
• 5Y*: 53.22%
• 10Y*: 34.03%

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

GC=F vs. UCG.MI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.84%
UCG.MI UniCredit S.p.A.	4.26%	119.11%	59.43%	101.17%	-1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between GC=F and UCG.MI is -0.11, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	-0.11

Return for Risk

GC=F vs. UCG.MI — Risk / Return Rank

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

GC=F

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

UCG.MI

UCG.MI Risk / Return Rank: 72
UCG.MI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
UCG.MI Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
UCG.MI Omega Ratio Rank: 69
UCG.MI Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
UCG.MI Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. UCG.MI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gold Futures (GC=F) and UniCredit S.p.A. (UCG.MI). 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	UCG.MI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.06	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.68	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.20	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.30	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	3.61	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	GC=F	UCG.MI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-94.03%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-26.80%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.80%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-50.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-69.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-7.29%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-68.09%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	9.62%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GC=F	UCG.MI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	8.74%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	26.62%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	32.83%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	37.98%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	49.20%	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GC=F and UCG.MI in my portfolio?

GC=F and UCG.MI have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.