UCG.MI vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

UCG.MI (UniCredit S.p.A.) is a stock, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

UCG.MI vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in UniCredit S.p.A. (UCG.MI) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

UCG.MI is traded in EUR, while GC=F is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the GC=F values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

UCG.MI

• 1D: 4.10%
• 1M: 1.31%
• YTD: 5.89%
• 6M: 11.29%
• 1Y: 36.86%
• 3Y*: 66.44%
• 5Y*: 54.62%
• 10Y*: 33.60%

GC=F

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UCG.MI vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UCG.MI UniCredit S.p.A.	5.89%	94.09%	69.10%	95.01%	2.24%
GC=F Gold Futures	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	13.25%

Correlation

The correlation between UCG.MI and GC=F is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	-0.17

Return for Risk

UCG.MI vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCG.MI

UCG.MI Risk / Return Rank: 72
UCG.MI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
UCG.MI Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
UCG.MI Omega Ratio Rank: 69
UCG.MI Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
UCG.MI Martin Ratio Rank: 73

GC=F

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

UCG.MI vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UniCredit S.p.A. (UCG.MI) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	UCG.MI	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.03	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	UCG.MI	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.17%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.17%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.40%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.16%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.50%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.98%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.66%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	UCG.MI	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.15%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.82%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.19%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.81%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.06%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCG.MI and GC=F in my portfolio?

UCG.MI and GC=F have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.