TGB vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

TGB (Taseko Mines Limited) is a stock, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Over the past 10 years, TGB returned 28.93%/yr vs 13.72%/yr for GC=F. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

TGB vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Taseko Mines Limited (TGB) 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, TGB achieves a 17.49% return, which is significantly higher than GC=F's 4.09% return. Over the past 10 years, TGB has outperformed GC=F with an annualized return of 28.93%, while GC=F has yielded a comparatively lower 13.72% annualized return.

TGB

• 1D: -12.84%
• 1M: -11.57%
• YTD: 17.49%
• 6M: 25.47%
• 1Y: 155.77%
• 3Y*: 67.70%
• 5Y*: 22.20%
• 10Y*: 28.93%

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)

TGB vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TGB Taseko Mines Limited	17.49%	191.75%	38.57%	-4.76%	-28.29%	55.30%	175.00%	1.48%	-79.70%	173.38%
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 TGB and GC=F is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2000	0.24

The correlation between TGB and GC=F shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (10 years) to 0.43 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TGB vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

TGB

TGB Risk / Return Rank: 88
TGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
TGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
TGB Omega Ratio Rank: 85
TGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
TGB Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Taseko Mines Limited (TGB) 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.

	TGB	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	1.22	+1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	1.61	+1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.25	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.42	1.83	+2.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.05	4.59	+7.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TGB vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TGB Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is higher than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TGB 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

	TGB	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.37	1.22	+1.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	1.04	-0.68
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44	0.83	-0.39
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.02	0.62	-0.65

Drawdowns

TGB vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TGB drawdown since its inception was -98.58%, 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 TGB and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	TGB	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.58%	-44.36%	-54.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.47%	-17.73%	-17.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-44.26%	-17.73%	-26.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.70%	-20.43%	-42.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-90.76%	-20.87%	-69.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-51.64%	-15.34%	-36.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-81.38%	-13.03%	-68.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.99%	7.13%	+5.86%

Volatility

TGB vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Taseko Mines Limited (TGB) has a higher volatility of 24.57% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 4.73%. This indicates that TGB'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

	TGB	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.57%	4.73%	+19.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	51.03%	23.11%	+27.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	66.37%	26.50%	+39.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.77%	18.20%	+44.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	65.75%	16.44%	+49.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

TGB and GC=F have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TGB or GC=F?

TGB has higher volatility (24.57%) compared to GC=F (4.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TGB dropped -98.58% vs GC=F's -44.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 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.