AUCP.L vs. RENG.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

AUCP.L (L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and RENG.L (L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AUCP.L is a Gold fund tracking the STOXX Global Gold Miners, while RENG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AUCP.L returned 22.35%/yr vs 6.31%/yr for RENG.L. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AUCP.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for RENG.L.

Performance

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUCP.L achieves a -15.76% return, which is significantly lower than RENG.L's 25.44% return.

AUCP.L

• 1D: -4.47%
• 1M: -15.63%
• 6M: -24.52%
• YTD: -15.76%
• 1Y: 45.51%
• 3Y*: 39.51%
• 5Y*: 22.35%
• 10Y*: 11.66%

RENG.L

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: -7.73%
• 6M: 19.01%
• YTD: 25.44%
• 1Y: 47.59%
• 3Y*: 13.38%
• 5Y*: 6.31%
• 10Y*: —

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

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AUCP.L L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF	-15.76%	161.99%	20.20%	8.69%	-4.04%	-8.91%	3.31%
RENG.L L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF	25.44%	40.21%	-12.86%	-13.13%	2.03%	-6.20%	9.04%

Correlation

The correlation between AUCP.L and RENG.L is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 27, 2020	0.25

The correlation between AUCP.L and RENG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (all time) to 0.38 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AUCP.L	RENG.L
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	1.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	51.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	20.8%
Utilities	-	23.4%

Return for Risk

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUCP.L

AUCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 30
AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
AUCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
AUCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 31
AUCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
AUCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 27

RENG.L

RENG.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
RENG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
RENG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RENG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RENG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
RENG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AUCP.L	RENG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.96	1.95	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	2.52	-1.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.33	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.22	3.10	-1.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.89	11.16	-8.27

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.96, which is lower than the RENG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUCP.L and RENG.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUCP.L drawdown since its inception was -81.66%, which is greater than RENG.L's maximum drawdown of -45.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUCP.L and RENG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUCP.L	RENG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.66%	-45.48%	-36.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.02%	-15.30%	-21.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.02%	-31.61%	-5.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.38%	-40.27%	+0.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.02%	-14.72%	-22.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-45.81%	-20.57%	-25.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.72%	4.25%	+11.47%

Volatility

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) has a higher volatility of 15.56% compared to L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L) at 8.75%. This indicates that AUCP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RENG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUCP.L	RENG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.56%	8.75%	+6.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.47%	19.05%	+18.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.46%	24.34%	+23.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.60%	22.21%	+17.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.15%	22.64%	+13.51%

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUCP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than RENG.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

AUCP.L vs. RENG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AUCP.L nor RENG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUCP.L and RENG.L in my portfolio?

AUCP.L and RENG.L have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AUCP.L or RENG.L?

On fees, RENG.L is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUCP.L or RENG.L?

RENG.L is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCP.L.

What is the main difference between AUCP.L and RENG.L?

AUCP.L is categorized as Gold, while RENG.L is Energy Equities. AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners, while RENG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AUCP.L and 0.49% for RENG.L.