IAU vs. 1810.HK

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IAU (iShares Gold Trust) is Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while 1810.HK (Xiaomi Corp) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, IAU returned 17.23%/yr vs -1.61%/yr for 1810.HK. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

IAU is traded in USD, while 1810.HK is traded in HKD. To make them comparable, the 1810.HK values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly higher than 1810.HK's -33.78% return.

IAU

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -9.54%
• YTD: -2.44%
• 6M: -2.22%
• 1Y: 22.32%
• 3Y*: 29.07%
• 5Y*: 17.23%
• 10Y*: 12.31%

1810.HK

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: -17.43%
• YTD: -33.78%
• 6M: -39.41%
• 1Y: -49.47%
• 3Y*: 33.78%
• 5Y*: -1.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
IAU iShares Gold Trust	-2.44%	63.95%	26.85%	12.84%	-0.63%	-4.00%	25.03%	17.98%	2.16%
1810.HK Xiaomi Corp	-33.78%	13.72%	122.28%	42.62%	-42.22%	-43.13%	208.09%	-16.13%	-22.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and 1810.HK is 0.09, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2018	0.04

Return for Risk

IAU vs. 1810.HK — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAU

IAU Risk / Return Rank: 26
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 30
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 24

1810.HK

1810.HK Risk / Return Rank: 4
1810.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
1810.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 3
1810.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
1810.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK). 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.

	IAU	1810.HK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	-1.43	+2.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	-2.36	+3.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	0.74	+0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	-0.89	+1.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	-1.51	+4.35

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is higher than the 1810.HK Sharpe Ratio of -1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU and 1810.HK, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, smaller than the maximum 1810.HK drawdown of -76.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and 1810.HK.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAU	1810.HK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.14%	-76.36%	+31.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.40%	-56.97%	+32.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.40%	-56.97%	+32.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.40%	-70.98%	+46.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.03%	-56.36%	+34.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-42.10%	+26.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.47%	32.95%	-24.48%

Volatility

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) is 7.70%, while Xiaomi Corp (1810.HK) has a volatility of 8.98%. This indicates that IAU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than 1810.HK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IAU	1810.HK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.70%	8.98%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.94%	26.23%	-2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.17%	35.45%	-8.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.16%	44.22%	-26.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.02%	45.80%	-29.78%

Dividends

IAU vs. 1810.HK - Dividend Comparison

Neither IAU nor 1810.HK has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IAU and 1810.HK in my portfolio?

IAU and 1810.HK have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.