ESGP.L vs. NATP.L
ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) and NATP.L (HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - ESGP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while NATP.L is a Aerospace & Defense fund tracking the EQM Future of Defence Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ESGP.L returned 64.08% vs 20.99% for NATP.L. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESGP.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for NATP.L.
Performance
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ESGP.L achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than NATP.L's 13.14% return.
ESGP.L
- 1D
- -1.22%
- 1M
- -0.06%
- YTD
- 1.59%
- 6M
- 5.94%
- 1Y
- 64.08%
- 3Y*
- 33.25%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NATP.L
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 10.19%
- YTD
- 13.14%
- 6M
- 16.55%
- 1Y
- 20.99%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ESGP.L HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF | 1.59% | 136.71% | 3.17% | 3.27% |
NATP.L HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP | 13.14% | 43.73% | 34.66% | 15.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between ESGP.L and NATP.L is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023 | 0.16 |
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. NATP.L — Risk / Return Rank
ESGP.L
NATP.L
ESGP.L vs. NATP.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 Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP (NATP.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 | NATP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.20 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.22 | 1.81 | +0.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.62 | 4.03 | +1.58 |
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 | NATP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.56 | 1.08 | +0.48 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 2.07 | -1.47 |
Drawdowns
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ESGP.L drawdown since its inception was -36.54%, which is greater than NATP.L's maximum drawdown of -11.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGP.L and NATP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ESGP.L | NATP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.54% | -11.66% | -24.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -28.67% | -11.55% | -17.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.67% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.79% | -2.00% | -22.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.49% | -2.36% | -11.13% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.38% | 5.20% | +6.18% |
Volatility
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Volatility Comparison
HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) has a higher volatility of 15.32% compared to HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP (NATP.L) at 5.87%. This indicates that ESGP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NATP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ESGP.L | NATP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 15.32% | 5.87% | +9.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.61% | 15.18% | +17.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.84% | 19.35% | +21.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.20% | 18.36% | +14.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.20% | 18.36% | +14.84% |
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
ESGP.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than NATP.L's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
ESGP.L vs. NATP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither ESGP.L nor NATP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
ESGP.L and NATP.L have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NATP.L is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NATP.L is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ESGP.L.
ESGP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while NATP.L is Aerospace & Defense. ESGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while NATP.L tracks EQM Future of Defence Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ESGP.L and 0.49% for NATP.L.
Find the right allocation for ESGP.L and NATP.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