Forecasting Realized Volatility with Time Series Foundation Models: A Comparison with Econometric Benchmarks

We ask whether pretrained time series foundation models (TSFMs) improve on established econometric benchmarks for forecasting realized volatility.

Using the VOLARE dataset, we conduct the first systematic comparison of nine zero-shot TSFMs against eight econometric specifications, including the Heterogeneous Autoregressive (HAR) family, across 50 assets in equities, foreign exchange, and futures, and three forecast horizons, with formal pairwise and multi-model forecast-comparison tests.

Foundation models do not deliver a uniform gain.

Pooled losses favor them, but the advantage is concentrated in a few outlier assets; averaging each asset's loss ratio to a well-specified Log-HAR benchmark, so that no single asset dominates, only one small model, Tiny Time Mixers (TTM), beats the benchmark at every horizon, and by a narrow margin.

The other foundation models do not improve on Log-HAR, and the econometric benchmarks remain competitive throughout.

A Mincer--Zarnowitz recalibration, which removes level and scale bias from every forecast, shows that much of the short-horizon advantage reflects better-scaled forecasts rather than better prediction of volatility dynamics, and only at the monthly horizon does a genuine informational gain remain.

Because this edge is thin and even TTM is not best on every asset, a simple equal-weight average of TTM and Log-HAR matches the best single model and enters the Model Confidence Set for 98 to 100\% of assets, more often than either component alone, so a forecaster need not identify the best model for each asset in advance.

Our most durable finding is that performance varies so much across foundation-model architectures that choosing the right architecture matters more than the broader choice between foundation and econometric models.