ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and GLDA.L (Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)) are both Precious Metals funds - ESGP.L tracks the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD while GLDA.L tracks the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESGP.L returned 33.25%/yr vs 27.70%/yr for GLDA.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESGP.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for GLDA.L.

Performance

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESGP.L achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than GLDA.L's 3.18% return.

ESGP.L

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 5.94%
• 1Y: 64.08%
• 3Y*: 33.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLDA.L

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: -2.91%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 6M: 4.27%
• 1Y: 33.20%
• 3Y*: 27.70%
• 5Y*: 19.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESGP.L HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF	1.59%	136.71%	3.17%	-0.39%	2.14%	-3.44%
GLDA.L Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)	3.18%	53.56%	28.19%	7.26%	12.68%	2.29%

Correlation

The correlation between ESGP.L and GLDA.L is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2021	0.56

The correlation between ESGP.L and GLDA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (all time) to 0.75 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESGP.L

ESGP.L Risk / Return Rank: 41
ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
ESGP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
ESGP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 40
ESGP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
ESGP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 37

GLDA.L

GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 37
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 43
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) and Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.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.

	ESGP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	1.41	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	1.84	+0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.28	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	1.85	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	5.02	+0.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is comparable to the GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESGP.L and GLDA.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ESGP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.56	1.41	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.40	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	1.06	-0.46

Drawdowns

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESGP.L drawdown since its inception was -36.54%, which is greater than GLDA.L's maximum drawdown of -21.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGP.L and GLDA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESGP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.54%	-21.57%	-14.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.67%	-17.90%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-17.90%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.79%	-16.61%	-8.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-5.40%	-8.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.38%	6.59%	+4.79%

Volatility

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) has a higher volatility of 15.32% compared to Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) at 5.18%. This indicates that ESGP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESGP.L	GLDA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.32%	5.18%	+10.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.61%	20.40%	+12.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.84%	23.46%	+17.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.20%	17.66%	+15.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.20%	18.02%	+15.18%

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESGP.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDA.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESGP.L vs. GLDA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ESGP.L nor GLDA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESGP.L and GLDA.L in my portfolio?

ESGP.L and GLDA.L have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ESGP.L or GLDA.L?

On fees, GLDA.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESGP.L or GLDA.L?

GLDA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ESGP.L.

What is the main difference between ESGP.L and GLDA.L?

ESGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while GLDA.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ESGP.L and 0.12% for GLDA.L.