PA=F vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PA=F (Palladium) and GC=F (Gold Futures) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, PA=F returned 9.07%/yr vs 13.72%/yr for GC=F. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

PA=F vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PA=F achieves a -18.52% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 4.09% return. Over the past 10 years, PA=F has underperformed GC=F with an annualized return of 9.07%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively higher 13.72% annualized return.

PA=F

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: -14.13%
• YTD: -18.52%
• 6M: -11.63%
• 1Y: 31.38%
• 3Y*: -1.66%
• 5Y*: -14.14%
• 10Y*: 9.07%

GC=F

• 1D: 1.48%
• 1M: -3.83%
• YTD: 4.09%
• 6M: 6.87%
• 1Y: 34.37%
• 3Y*: 31.99%
• 5Y*: 18.96%
• 10Y*: 13.72%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PA=F Palladium	-18.52%	79.07%	-17.98%	-38.30%	-5.52%	-22.50%	28.42%	59.67%	13.49%	54.27%
GC=F Gold Futures	4.09%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%

Correlation

The correlation between PA=F and GC=F is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 9, 2006	0.37

The correlation between PA=F and GC=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (10 years) to 0.49 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PA=F vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

PA=F

PA=F Risk / Return Rank: 7
PA=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
PA=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
PA=F Omega Ratio Rank: 7
PA=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
PA=F Martin Ratio Rank: 7

GC=F

GC=F Risk / Return Rank: 54
GC=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GC=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
GC=F Omega Ratio Rank: 54
GC=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
GC=F Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

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

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

	PA=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.53	1.22	-0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.99	1.61	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.25	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	1.83	-1.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.51	4.59	-3.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current PA=F Sharpe Ratio is 0.53, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PA=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

	PA=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.53	1.22	-0.70
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.29	1.04	-1.33
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.21	0.83	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	0.62	-0.44

Drawdowns

PA=F vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PA=F drawdown since its inception was -74.88%, 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 PA=F and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	PA=F	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.88%	-44.36%	-30.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.30%	-17.73%	-21.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.53%	-17.73%	-23.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.88%	-20.43%	-54.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.88%	-20.87%	-54.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-59.64%	-15.34%	-44.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.90%	-13.03%	-13.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.45%	7.13%	+12.32%

Volatility

PA=F vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Palladium (PA=F) has a higher volatility of 9.89% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 4.73%. This indicates that PA=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

	PA=F	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.89%	4.73%	+5.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	47.86%	23.11%	+24.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	52.69%	26.50%	+26.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	44.23%	18.20%	+26.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.62%	16.44%	+21.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

PA=F and GC=F have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

PA=F has higher volatility (9.89%) compared to GC=F (4.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PA=F dropped -74.88% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.53), 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.