GOLD.AS vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GOLD.AS (Amundi Physical Gold ETC C) is Precious Metals fund tracking the LMBA Gold Price PM USD, while GC=F (Gold) is an asset. Over the past 5 years, GOLD.AS returned 18.45%/yr vs 18.75%/yr for GC=F. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure.

Performance

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and Gold (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GOLD.AS achieves a 2.90% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 3.17% return.

GOLD.AS

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 2.90%
• 6M: 5.08%
• 1Y: 32.45%
• 3Y*: 31.11%
• 5Y*: 18.45%
• 10Y*: —

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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GOLD.AS Amundi Physical Gold ETC C	2.90%	64.94%	26.36%	13.35%	-0.13%	-4.09%	24.31%	18.40%
GC=F Gold	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.27%

Correlation

The correlation between GOLD.AS and GC=F is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2019	0.88

The correlation between GOLD.AS and GC=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

GOLD.AS

GOLD.AS Risk / Return Rank: 34
GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GOLD.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GOLD.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 37
GOLD.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GOLD.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and Gold (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.

	GOLD.AS	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	1.22	+0.06
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	1.60	+0.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.25	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	1.82	-0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.78	4.60	+0.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is comparable to the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GOLD.AS 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

	GOLD.AS	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.28	1.22	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.05	1.03	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.83	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.11	0.62	+0.49

Drawdowns

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GOLD.AS drawdown since its inception was -21.14%, smaller than the maximum GC=F drawdown of -44.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GOLD.AS and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	GOLD.AS	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.14%	-44.36%	+23.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.83%	-17.73%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.83%	-17.73%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.14%	-20.43%	-0.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.87%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.22%	-16.09%	-0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-13.03%	+6.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.74%	7.09%	-0.35%

Volatility

GOLD.AS vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) has a higher volatility of 6.67% compared to Gold (GC=F) at 5.24%. This indicates that GOLD.AS'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

	GOLD.AS	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.67%	5.24%	+1.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.08%	23.04%	-0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.04%	26.46%	-1.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.27%	18.19%	-0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.02%	16.44%	+0.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GOLD.AS and GC=F have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.