ESGP.L vs. GOLB.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and GOLB.L (Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF) are both Precious Metals funds tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, from HANetf and China Post Global respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESGP.L returned 33.25%/yr vs 40.39%/yr for GOLB.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ESGP.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for GOLB.L.

Performance

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.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 Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ESGP.L is traded in GBp, while GOLB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the GOLB.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESGP.L achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than GOLB.L's 4.84% return.

ESGP.L

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

GOLB.L

• 1D: -2.14%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 4.84%
• 6M: 9.15%
• 1Y: 75.94%
• 3Y*: 40.39%
• 5Y*: 20.10%
• 10Y*: 16.43%

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

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.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%
GOLB.L Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF	4.84%	138.45%	14.05%	0.34%	1.34%	-2.81%

Correlation

The correlation between ESGP.L and GOLB.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2021	0.94

The correlation between ESGP.L and GOLB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ESGP.L	GOLB.L
Basic Materials	100.0%	3.7%
Communication Services	-	5.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	2.9%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	16.2%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	28.2%
Real Estate	-	13.8%
Technology	-	9.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.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

GOLB.L

GOLB.L Risk / Return Rank: 48
GOLB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GOLB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GOLB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GOLB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
GOLB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. GOLB.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 Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.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	GOLB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	1.80	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.21	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.29	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	2.69	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	6.89	-1.28
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. GOLB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is comparable to the GOLB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESGP.L and GOLB.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	GOLB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.56	1.80	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.14	+0.46

Drawdowns

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESGP.L drawdown since its inception was -36.54%, smaller than the maximum GOLB.L drawdown of -84.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGP.L and GOLB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESGP.L	GOLB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.54%	-84.29%	+47.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.67%	-28.11%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-28.11%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.60%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.79%	-24.32%	-0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-49.40%	+35.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.38%	10.98%	+0.40%

Volatility

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) and Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.L) have volatilities of 15.32% and 14.77%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESGP.L	GOLB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.32%	14.77%	+0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.61%	33.09%	-0.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.84%	41.89%	-1.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.20%	33.81%	-0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.20%	34.40%	-1.20%

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

ESGP.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GOLB.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESGP.L vs. GOLB.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, ESGP.L and GOLB.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

On fees, ESGP.L is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

ESGP.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GOLB.L.

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

Both ETFs track EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and China Post Global. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ESGP.L and 0.65% for GOLB.L.