YGLD.DE vs. GC=F

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

YGLD.DE (IncomeShares Gold + Yield ETP) is Derivative Income fund actively managed by Leverage Shares, while GC=F (Gold Futures) is an asset. Over the past year, YGLD.DE returned 17.39% vs 32.42% for GC=F. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in IncomeShares Gold + Yield ETP (YGLD.DE) and Gold Futures (GC=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

YGLD.DE 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

In the year-to-date period, YGLD.DE achieves a -5.17% return, which is significantly lower than GC=F's 5.29% return.

YGLD.DE

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -2.44%
• YTD: -5.17%
• 6M: -2.21%
• 1Y: 17.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GC=F

• 1D: 1.35%
• 1M: -2.72%
• YTD: 5.29%
• 6M: 7.13%
• 1Y: 32.42%
• 3Y*: 28.49%
• 5Y*: 20.07%
• 10Y*: 13.47%

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

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
YGLD.DE IncomeShares Gold + Yield ETP	-5.17%	41.92%	-7.11%
GC=F Gold Futures	5.29%	45.00%	3.63%

Correlation

The correlation between YGLD.DE and GC=F is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2024	0.67

The correlation between YGLD.DE and GC=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

YGLD.DE

YGLD.DE Risk / Return Rank: 21
YGLD.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
YGLD.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
YGLD.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 26
YGLD.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
YGLD.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IncomeShares Gold + Yield ETP (YGLD.DE) 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.

	YGLD.DE	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	1.18	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	1.58	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.25	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	1.85	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.95	4.52	-2.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current YGLD.DE Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the GC=F Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of YGLD.DE 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

	YGLD.DE	GC=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	1.18	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.64	-0.05

Drawdowns

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum YGLD.DE drawdown since its inception was -16.94%, smaller than the maximum GC=F drawdown of -36.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for YGLD.DE and GC=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	YGLD.DE	GC=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.94%	-36.91%	+19.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.94%	-16.35%	-0.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.27%	-14.39%	-0.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.54%	-11.41%	+5.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.62%	6.74%	+1.88%

Volatility

YGLD.DE vs. GC=F - Volatility Comparison

IncomeShares Gold + Yield ETP (YGLD.DE) has a higher volatility of 6.19% compared to Gold Futures (GC=F) at 4.15%. This indicates that YGLD.DE'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

	YGLD.DE	GC=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.19%	4.15%	+2.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.41%	22.34%	-4.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.80%	25.64%	+4.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.34%	17.41%	+8.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.34%	15.87%	+10.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both YGLD.DE and GC=F in my portfolio?

YGLD.DE and GC=F have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.