GZIRX vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

GZIRX (Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund) is Nontraditional Bonds fund managed by Goldman Sachs, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

GZIRX vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund (GZIRX) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GZIRX

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 1.13%
• YTD: 1.93%
• 6M: 2.48%
• 1Y: 7.86%
• 3Y*: 7.88%
• 5Y*: 4.44%
• 10Y*: 3.74%

GC=F

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

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

GZIRX vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GZIRX Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund	1.93%	8.49%	6.13%	10.37%	-3.65%
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	5.84%

Correlation

The correlation between GZIRX and GC=F is -0.04, 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 Jan 31, 2022	-0.04

Return for Risk

GZIRX vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

GZIRX

GZIRX Risk / Return Rank: 89
GZIRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GZIRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GZIRX Omega Ratio Rank: 92
GZIRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
GZIRX Martin Ratio Rank: 87

GC=F

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

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Strategic Income Fund (GZIRX) 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.

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.

	GZIRX	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.35	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.85	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	GZIRX	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.90%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-7.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-13.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.77%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GZIRX	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.39%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.83%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.39%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.71%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GZIRX and GC=F have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.