LUNA CLASSIC vs BNB
LUNA CLASSIC (LUNC) and BNB (BNB) compared side by side. Over the past 1 year, LUNC is ahead by 16.4 percentage points (LUNC -3.2% against BNB -19.6%). Their daily returns move barely together (correlation 0.33 across 399 shared trading days). LUNC has been the more volatile of the two, at 125% annualised against BNB's 51%.
Performance
| Period | LUNC | BNB | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 days | -4.38% | +0.82% | BNB |
| 30 days | +0.87% | +12.64% | BNB |
| 90 days | -10.80% | +39.21% | BNB |
| 1 year | -3.16% | -19.57% | LUNC |
Risk & extremes
| Metric | LUNC | BNB |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (400d) | -58.9% | -58.2% |
| Risk-adjusted return (90d) | -0.18 | 1.13 |
| Best 30 days (past year) | +214.7% | +29.4% |
| Worst 30 days (past year) | -42.7% | -34.9% |
Relative strength over 90 days: BNB outperformed LUNC by 34.3% — measured on the LUNC/BNB ratio, so it holds regardless of market direction.
Correlation
0.33over 399 shared trading days
7d: insufficient data30d: 0.7290d: 0.701y: 0.33
Measured on daily returns rather than on prices. Two assets that both simply trend upward score near 1.0 on raw prices whether or not they move together, so returns are what answer the question people mean by correlation.