SI=F vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SI=F (Silver) and GC=F (Gold) are both assets. Over the past 10 years, SI=F returned 16.53%/yr vs 13.66%/yr for GC=F. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

SI=F vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SI=F achieves a 7.02% return, which is significantly higher than GC=F's 3.17% return. Over the past 10 years, SI=F has outperformed GC=F with an annualized return of 16.53%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively lower 13.66% annualized return.

SI=F

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 2.77%
• YTD: 7.02%
• 6M: 28.89%
• 1Y: 118.16%
• 3Y*: 46.86%
• 5Y*: 22.41%
• 10Y*: 16.53%

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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SI=F Silver	7.02%	141.44%	21.41%	0.19%	2.95%	-11.59%	47.38%	15.32%	-9.36%	7.23%
GC=F Gold	3.17%	64.52%	27.48%	13.34%	-0.43%	-3.47%	24.59%	18.87%	-2.14%	13.59%

Correlation

The correlation between SI=F and GC=F is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.69

The correlation between SI=F and GC=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.71 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

SI=F vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

SI=F

SI=F Risk / Return Rank: 68
SI=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
SI=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
SI=F Omega Ratio Rank: 70
SI=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
SI=F Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Silver (SI=F) and Gold (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.

	SI=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.22	+0.31
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	1.60	+0.32
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.25	+0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	1.82	+0.40
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.79	4.60	+0.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current SI=F Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SI=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

	SI=F	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	1.22	+0.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	1.03	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	0.83	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.62	-0.40

Drawdowns

SI=F vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SI=F drawdown since its inception was -91.54%, 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 SI=F and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	SI=F	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.54%	-44.36%	-47.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.21%	-17.73%	-23.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.21%	-17.73%	-23.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.21%	-20.43%	-20.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.13%	-20.87%	-22.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.38%	-16.09%	-18.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-61.04%	-13.03%	-48.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.84%	7.09%	+13.75%

Volatility

SI=F vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Silver (SI=F) has a higher volatility of 14.62% compared to Gold (GC=F) at 5.24%. This indicates that SI=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

	SI=F	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.62%	5.24%	+9.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	60.87%	23.04%	+37.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	60.06%	26.46%	+33.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.96%	18.19%	+19.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.58%	16.44%	+17.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

SI=F and GC=F have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

SI=F has higher volatility (14.62%) compared to GC=F (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SI=F dropped -91.54% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SI=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 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.