GLL vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) is Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%), while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Over the past 10 years, GLL returned -23.37%/yr vs 13.66%/yr for GC=F. At a correlation of -0.85, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

GLL vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLL achieves a -14.49% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 3.17% return. Over the past 10 years, GLL has underperformed GC=F with an annualized return of -23.37%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively higher 13.66% annualized return.

GLL

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: 3.37%
• YTD: -14.49%
• 6M: -18.72%
• 1Y: -48.24%
• 3Y*: -41.46%
• 5Y*: -28.82%
• 10Y*: -23.37%

GC=F

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: -1.26%
• YTD: 3.17%
• 6M: 6.27%
• 1Y: 33.21%
• 3Y*: 31.73%
• 5Y*: 18.75%
• 10Y*: 13.66%

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

GLL vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	-14.49%	-62.81%	-33.33%	-14.91%	-2.12%	1.66%	-41.47%	-26.95%	5.39%	-23.67%
GC=F Gold Futures	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%

Correlation

The correlation between GLL and GC=F is -0.86, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.90
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2008	-0.85

The correlation between GLL and GC=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.90 to -0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GLL vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLL

GLL Risk / Return Rank: 2
GLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
GLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
GLL Omega Ratio Rank: 2
GLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

GC=F

GC=F Risk / Return Rank: 52
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 47
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

GLL vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) and Gold Futures (GC=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.

	GLL	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.92	1.22	-2.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.50	1.60	-3.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.83	1.25	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.74	1.82	-2.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.16	4.60	-5.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLL vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLL Sharpe Ratio is -0.92, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLL and GC=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

	GLL	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.92	1.22	-2.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.81	1.03	-1.83
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.73	0.83	-1.56
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.67	0.62	-1.29

Drawdowns

GLL vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLL drawdown since its inception was -99.24%, which is greater than GC=F's maximum drawdown of -44.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLL and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLL	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.24%	-44.36%	-54.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.10%	-17.73%	-47.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-87.95%	-17.73%	-70.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-89.76%	-20.43%	-69.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-95.76%	-20.87%	-74.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.94%	-16.09%	-82.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-85.13%	-13.03%	-72.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	41.74%	7.09%	+34.65%

Volatility

GLL vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) has a higher volatility of 11.07% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 5.24%. This indicates that GLL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GC=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLL	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.07%	5.24%	+5.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	44.43%	23.04%	+21.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	52.38%	26.46%	+25.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.90%	18.19%	+17.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.12%	16.44%	+15.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GLL and GC=F have a correlation of -0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLL or GC=F?

GLL has higher volatility (11.07%) compared to GC=F (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLL dropped -99.24% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs -0.92), 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.