ESGP.L vs. METP.L
ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and METP.L (HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ESGP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while METP.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ESGP.L returned 62.77% vs -3.64% for METP.L. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESGP.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for METP.L.
Performance
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ESGP.L achieves a 2.21% return, which is significantly higher than METP.L's -8.08% return.
ESGP.L
- 1D
- 0.62%
- 1M
- 1.18%
- YTD
- 2.21%
- 6M
- 7.21%
- 1Y
- 62.77%
- 3Y*
- 33.61%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
METP.L
- 1D
- -5.28%
- 1M
- 4.65%
- YTD
- -8.08%
- 6M
- -14.44%
- 1Y
- -3.64%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ESGP.L HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF | 2.21% | 77.59% |
METP.L HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF | -8.08% | 21.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between ESGP.L and METP.L is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025 | 0.14 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ESGP.L vs. METP.L — Risk / Return Rank
ESGP.L
METP.L
ESGP.L vs. METP.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 HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF (METP.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 | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.68 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.05 | +0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.18 | -0.07 | +2.25 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.45 | -0.12 | +5.57 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ESGP.L | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | -0.07 | +1.60 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.21 | +0.39 |
Drawdowns
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ESGP.L drawdown since its inception was -36.54%, smaller than the maximum METP.L drawdown of -53.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGP.L and METP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ESGP.L | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.54% | -53.17% | +16.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -28.67% | -53.17% | +24.50% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.67% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.33% | -42.94% | +18.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.50% | -23.16% | +9.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.48% | 31.91% | -20.43% |
Volatility
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Volatility Comparison
HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) has a higher volatility of 15.32% compared to HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF (METP.L) at 10.24%. This indicates that ESGP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than METP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ESGP.L | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 15.32% | 10.24% | +5.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.59% | 20.43% | +12.16% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.84% | 52.25% | -11.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.19% | 51.09% | -17.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.19% | 51.09% | -17.90% |
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
ESGP.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than METP.L's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
ESGP.L vs. METP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither ESGP.L nor METP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
ESGP.L and METP.L have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
ESGP.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for METP.L.
ESGP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while METP.L is Technology Equities. ESGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while METP.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ESGP.L and 0.65% for METP.L.
Find the right allocation for ESGP.L and METP.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer