YCA.L vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

YCA.L (Yellow Cake plc) is a stock, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Over the past 5 years, YCA.L returned 15.32%/yr vs 20.25%/yr for GC=F. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Yellow Cake plc (YCA.L) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, YCA.L achieves a -4.90% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 4.51% return.

YCA.L

• 1D: -1.75%
• 1M: -5.93%
• YTD: -4.90%
• 6M: 3.68%
• 1Y: 15.61%
• 3Y*: 9.86%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: —

GC=F

• 1D: 1.48%
• 1M: -0.27%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 6.16%
• 1Y: 34.76%
• 3Y*: 28.68%
• 5Y*: 20.25%
• 10Y*: 14.57%

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

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
YCA.L Yellow Cake plc	-4.90%	18.45%	-19.19%	65.11%	10.18%	36.55%	23.88%	-12.23%	12.25%
GC=F Gold Futures	4.51%	52.80%	29.71%	7.67%	11.41%	-2.55%	20.93%	14.35%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between YCA.L and GC=F is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.21
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2018	0.10

Over the past year, YCA.L and GC=F have become more correlated (0.34) than their long-term average of 0.10, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

YCA.L vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

YCA.L

YCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 54
YCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
YCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
YCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 49
YCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
YCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Yellow Cake plc (YCA.L) 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.

	YCA.L	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.44	1.31	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	1.70	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.27	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.67	1.98	-1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.39	5.00	-3.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current YCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.44, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of YCA.L 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

	YCA.L	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44	1.31	-0.87
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	1.16	-0.75
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	0.69	-0.30

Drawdowns

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum YCA.L drawdown since its inception was -48.15%, which is greater than GC=F's maximum drawdown of -40.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for YCA.L and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	YCA.L	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.15%	-40.62%	-7.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.13%	-16.99%	-6.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.15%	-16.99%	-31.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.15%	-16.99%	-31.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.38%	-15.05%	-9.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.57%	-12.19%	-5.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.19%	6.82%	+4.37%

Volatility

YCA.L vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

Yellow Cake plc (YCA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.32% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 4.26%. This indicates that YCA.L'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

	YCA.L	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.32%	4.26%	+5.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.05%	22.29%	-0.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.05%	25.67%	+9.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.29%	17.38%	+19.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.88%	17.07%	+17.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both YCA.L and GC=F in my portfolio?

YCA.L and GC=F have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.