Equalize the money and dates before choosing a winner
Comparing BIST, gold and dollars for a TRY 1,000 monthly budget begins with equal contributions. Investing an entire year's money initially in one option and gradually in another is not the same experiment. Here each option receives TRY 1,000 in each of two months. Contributions are TRY 2,000 per row. Running all three plans would require TRY 6,000; the example does not divide a single TRY 2,000 budget into three parts.
Every price and exchange rate below is hypothetical, not the performance record of a named historical period. The purpose is to show quantities purchased and their eventual valuation. The methodology review date is 14 September 2026, but no current exchange rate or gold quote is provided. Taxes and dealing costs are zero in every row. Choosing an actual product requires rebuilding the calculation with that product's own terms rather than assuming these simplified conditions apply.
Make the inputs explicit
In the first month, assume USD/TRY is 20, gold is $2,000 per ounce and a representative BIST level is 5,000. In the second month use 25, $2,500 and 6,000. For final valuation use 30, $2,400 and 5,500. These are calculation inputs, not market observations. The dollar balance earns no interest, gold has no storage cost or product premium, and representative index quantities do not imply directly purchasable index shares.
| Input | First purchase | Second purchase | Final valuation |
|---|---|---|---|
| USD/TRY | 20 | 25 | 30 |
| Gold USD/ounce | 2,000 | 2,500 | 2,400 |
| Representative BIST level | 5,000 | 6,000 | 5,500 |
The non-interest-bearing dollar comparison
The first TRY 1,000 buys $50 at a rate of 20. The second buys $40 at 25. Together they produce $90. At the ending rate of 30, the value is 90 × 30 = TRY 2,700, a nominal TRY 700 difference from contributions. This is not interest from a dollar deposit. It comes solely from currency conversion. Comparing with an interest-bearing product requires adding that product's actual income and cost treatment separately.
Do not convert the full TRY 2,000 at the ending exchange rate and call it the original dollar quantity. That erases the different purchase conversions. A simple average of the two rates also does not exactly reproduce the sum of separate purchases. Converting each contribution at its own observation preserves the budget constraint. Check quote direction as well: this table uses lira per dollar, not dollars per lira, and the formulas depend on that choice.
Gold combines two price effects
The first month's lira gold price is 2,000 × 20 = TRY 40,000 per ounce. A TRY 1,000 contribution acquires 0.025 ounces. The second month's price is 2,500 × 25 = TRY 62,500, acquiring 0.016 ounces. Total quantity is 0.041 ounces. The ending price is 2,400 × 30 = TRY 72,000 per ounce, giving 0.041 × 72,000 = TRY 2,952. Both the dollar gold price and the exchange rate influence that value.
This is an ounce-equivalent calculation, not a purchase of a physical gram-gold product from a dealer. Purity, product premiums, spreads and storage are excluded. A bank gold account or fund also has its own pricing and costs. The site's GC=F indicator is a futures price series, not a physical-gold account. A real product's return requires the relevant product data. A common gold label does not erase differences between these exposures.
Scale the BIST level to the budget
The first contribution buys a representative 1,000 / 5,000 = 0.2 index units. The second adds 1,000 / 6,000, approximately 0.166667. Total quantity is approximately 0.366667. At the ending level of 5,500, value is TRY 2,016.67, a gross difference of TRY 16.67. This scales an index path to a budget; it is not an exact fund-account reconstruction. Dividends, fund expenses and tracking differences are not independently modeled.
For these deliberately selected inputs, gold finishes at TRY 2,952, dollar cash at TRY 2,700 and the representative BIST holding at TRY 2,016.67. That ranking is not a historical observation or forecast. Changing the ending BIST level directly changes the equity row. Use the table to check equal-budget arithmetic rather than to extract an investment recommendation from invented prices. The assumptions explain the ranking; the ranking does not validate the assumptions as predictions.
Nominal break-even does not establish purchasing-power preservation
An ending value above TRY 2,000 does not by itself show that both contributions retained purchasing power. They entered at different dates and potentially different consumer-price levels. A detailed real-return comparison translates each contribution into a common price level before comparing with ending wealth. No inflation observations are used here, so no real return is reported. Calling the difference nominal is accurate; relabeling it as purchasing-power growth would add an unsupported claim.
If the eventual expense is payable in dollars, a lira ranking alone may be insufficient. Final values can be translated at the same ending rate, but the original dollar-equivalent contributions also need their purchase-date conversions. Reporting currency is part of the question. The largest displayed number is not automatically the most appropriate option. This article does not measure personal risk tolerance or spending deadlines and therefore does not determine suitability.
Keep a transaction-level record for a real comparison
Record each contribution's date, lira budget, product purchase price, exchange rate, fee and acquired quantity. Value the remaining quantity at the chosen ending observation. Establish a holiday rule before starting. A reference such as the central bank's exchange-rate data supports traceability, but it need not equal a bank's offered dealing price. Treating a reference observation as a transaction receipt can create repeated differences that look small individually but affect the eventual reconciliation.
The DCA calculator helps construct contribution scenarios for supported assets. The dollar-cash row here is an explanatory benchmark, not a claim that the interface offers a separate cash product. Equalize contributions and valuation dates when comparing results. A live-price calculation should not reproduce this hypothetical table. Defining the question and inputs matters more than displaying many decimal places in a result built on incompatible assumptions.
Before asking which row earned more, ask whether budgets were equal, instruments correctly named and exclusions consistently applied. If any answer is unclear, the ranking is incompletely explained. Fixing the table means making the missing input visible, not writing a more confident winner headline. A useful regular-investment comparison can provide concrete information without pretending to be an unverified historical finding or a definitive personal choice.
