HGY.TO vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

HGY.TO (Global X Gold Yield ETF) is Gold fund actively managed by Global X, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

HGY.TO vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

HGY.TO is traded in CAD, while GC=F is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the GC=F values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

HGY.TO

• 1D: -3.32%
• 1M: -14.36%
• YTD: -9.29%
• 6M: -11.52%
• 1Y: 11.76%
• 3Y*: 20.10%
• 5Y*: 11.82%
• 10Y*: 5.99%

GC=F

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

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

HGY.TO vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HGY.TO Global X Gold Yield ETF	-9.29%	48.66%	21.36%	9.51%	-1.40%
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	6.30%

Correlation

The correlation between HGY.TO and GC=F is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	0.15

Return for Risk

HGY.TO vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

HGY.TO

HGY.TO Risk / Return Rank: 16
HGY.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
HGY.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
HGY.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 17
HGY.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
HGY.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

HGY.TO vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) 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.

	HGY.TO	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.47	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.76	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.49	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.46	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	HGY.TO	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.27%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.64%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.07%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	HGY.TO	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.51%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.58%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.10%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.03%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.68%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HGY.TO and GC=F in my portfolio?

HGY.TO and GC=F have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.