RNMBF vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RNMBF (Rheinmetall AG) is a stock, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Over the past 5 years, RNMBF returned 73.49%/yr vs 18.75%/yr for GC=F. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

RNMBF vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rheinmetall AG (RNMBF) 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, RNMBF achieves a -22.59% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 3.17% return.

RNMBF

• 1D: 1.52%
• 1M: -10.18%
• YTD: -22.59%
• 6M: -20.28%
• 1Y: -32.10%
• 3Y*: 78.43%
• 5Y*: 73.49%
• 10Y*: —

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)

RNMBF vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RNMBF Rheinmetall AG	-22.59%	189.47%	106.03%	62.49%	112.89%	16.07%	8.13%	0.00%
GC=F Gold Futures	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	0.80%

Correlation

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

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2019	0.09

Return for Risk

RNMBF vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNMBF

RNMBF Risk / Return Rank: 12
RNMBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
RNMBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
RNMBF Omega Ratio Rank: 16
RNMBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
RNMBF Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rheinmetall AG (RNMBF) 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.

	RNMBF	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.67	1.22	-1.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.78	1.60	-2.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.25	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.74	1.82	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.68	4.60	-6.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNMBF vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNMBF Sharpe Ratio is -0.67, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNMBF 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

	RNMBF	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.67	1.22	-1.89
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.49	1.03	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.83	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	0.62	+0.74

Drawdowns

RNMBF vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNMBF drawdown since its inception was -43.75%, roughly equal to the maximum GC=F drawdown of -44.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNMBF and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNMBF	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.75%	-44.36%	+0.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.75%	-17.73%	-26.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.75%	-17.73%	-26.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.75%	-20.43%	-23.32%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.87%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-39.25%	-16.09%	-23.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.71%	-13.03%	+4.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.14%	7.09%	+12.05%

Volatility

RNMBF vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Rheinmetall AG (RNMBF) has a higher volatility of 17.97% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 5.24%. This indicates that RNMBF'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

	RNMBF	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.97%	5.24%	+12.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.40%	23.04%	+14.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.91%	26.46%	+21.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.69%	18.19%	+31.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.75%	16.44%	+32.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RNMBF 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.

Which is riskier, RNMBF or GC=F?

RNMBF has higher volatility (17.97%) compared to GC=F (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNMBF dropped -43.75% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GC=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs -0.67), 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.