PL=F vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PL=F (Platinum) and GC=F (Gold Futures) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, PL=F returned 6.66%/yr vs 13.72%/yr for GC=F. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

PL=F vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Platinum (PL=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, PL=F achieves a -6.68% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 4.09% return. Over the past 10 years, PL=F has underperformed GC=F with an annualized return of 6.66%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively higher 13.72% annualized return.

PL=F

• 1D: 1.27%
• 1M: -3.17%
• YTD: -6.68%
• 6M: 14.75%
• 1Y: 74.38%
• 3Y*: 22.36%
• 5Y*: 10.27%
• 10Y*: 6.66%

GC=F

• 1D: 1.48%
• 1M: -1.17%
• YTD: 4.09%
• 6M: 6.90%
• 1Y: 33.46%
• 3Y*: 31.99%
• 5Y*: 18.96%
• 10Y*: 13.72%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PL=F Platinum	-6.68%	123.45%	-9.78%	-6.81%	12.08%	-10.47%	10.37%	22.13%	-14.68%	3.60%
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 PL=F and GC=F is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 26, 2009	0.58

The correlation between PL=F and GC=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

PL=F vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

PL=F

PL=F Risk / Return Rank: 58
PL=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
PL=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
PL=F Omega Ratio Rank: 57
PL=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PL=F Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Platinum (PL=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.

	PL=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	1.22	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	1.61	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.25	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	1.83	+0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.03	4.59	-0.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current PL=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is comparable to the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PL=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

	PL=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.32	1.22	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	1.04	-0.75
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	0.10	0.62	-0.52

Drawdowns

PL=F vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PL=F drawdown since its inception was -68.68%, 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 PL=F and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	PL=F	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.68%	-44.36%	-24.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.55%	-17.73%	-17.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.55%	-17.73%	-17.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.55%	-20.43%	-15.12%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.56%	-20.87%	-28.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.44%	-15.34%	-18.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.40%	-13.03%	-23.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.98%	7.13%	+10.85%

Volatility

PL=F vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Platinum (PL=F) has a higher volatility of 10.31% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 4.73%. This indicates that PL=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

	PL=F	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.31%	4.73%	+5.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	48.96%	23.11%	+25.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.15%	26.50%	+27.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.63%	18.20%	+17.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.75%	16.44%	+15.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

PL=F and GC=F have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

PL=F has higher volatility (10.31%) compared to GC=F (4.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PL=F dropped -68.68% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PL=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 1.22), 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.