HG=F vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HG=F (Copper) and GC=F (Gold) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, HG=F returned 11.85%/yr vs 13.66%/yr for GC=F. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

HG=F vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HG=F achieves a 15.17% return, which is significantly higher than GC=F's 3.17% return. Over the past 10 years, HG=F has underperformed GC=F with an annualized return of 11.85%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively higher 13.66% annualized return.

HG=F

• 1D: -2.49%
• 1M: 11.89%
• YTD: 15.17%
• 6M: 20.32%
• 1Y: 34.13%
• 3Y*: 20.19%
• 5Y*: 7.43%
• 10Y*: 11.85%

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)

HG=F vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HG=F Copper	15.17%	39.82%	3.50%	2.10%	-14.63%	26.84%	25.81%	6.31%	-20.28%	31.73%
GC=F Gold	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%

Correlation

The correlation between HG=F and GC=F is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.28

The correlation between HG=F and GC=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (10 years) to 0.42 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HG=F vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

HG=F

HG=F Risk / Return Rank: 18
HG=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
HG=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
HG=F Omega Ratio Rank: 25
HG=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
HG=F Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Copper (HG=F) 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.

	HG=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	1.22	-0.37
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	1.60	-0.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.25	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	1.82	-0.62
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.60	4.60	-2.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HG=F vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HG=F Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HG=F 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

	HG=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84	1.22	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26	1.03	-0.77
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48	0.83	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.21	0.62	-0.41

Drawdowns

HG=F vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HG=F drawdown since its inception was -68.86%, 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 HG=F and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	HG=F	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.86%	-44.36%	-24.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.17%	-17.73%	-7.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.17%	-17.73%	-7.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.96%	-20.43%	-14.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.54%	-20.87%	-15.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.49%	-16.09%	+13.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.58%	-13.03%	-16.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.17%	7.09%	+5.08%

Volatility

HG=F vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Copper (HG=F) has a higher volatility of 9.08% compared to Gold (GC=F) at 5.24%. This indicates that HG=F'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

	HG=F	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.08%	5.24%	+3.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.03%	23.04%	-1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.56%	26.46%	+9.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.88%	18.19%	+8.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.67%	16.44%	+7.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HG=F and GC=F have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HG=F or GC=F?

HG=F has higher volatility (9.08%) compared to GC=F (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HG=F dropped -68.86% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.84), 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.