FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF (FEPG.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L).

FEPG.L and RMAP.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FEPG.L is an actively managed fund by HANetf. It was launched on Jun 30, 2025. RMAP.L is a passively managed fund by HANetf that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Feb 12, 2020.

Performance

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF (FEPG.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FEPG.L REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF	-13.54%	1.39%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	10.65%	28.53%

Different Trading Currencies

FEPG.L is traded in USD, while RMAP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the RMAP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEPG.L achieves a -13.54% return, which is significantly lower than RMAP.L's 10.65% return.

FEPG.L

• 1D: 2.15%
• 1M: -1.46%
• YTD: -13.54%
• 6M: -16.27%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: 2.94%
• 1M: -10.29%
• YTD: 10.65%
• 6M: 23.46%
• 1Y: 52.24%
• 3Y*: 33.92%
• 5Y*: 22.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEPG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAP.L's 0.22% expense ratio.

FEPG.L

REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF

RMAP.L

HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC

Return for Risk

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 61
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF (FEPG.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FEPG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.89	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.94	0.78	-1.72

Correlation

The correlation between FEPG.L and RMAP.L is 0.04, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

FEPG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.24%, while RMAP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025
FEPG.L REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF	0.24%	0.15%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

FEPG.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEPG.L drawdown since its inception was -23.44%, smaller than the maximum RMAP.L drawdown of -27.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEPG.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEPG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.44%	-27.31%	+3.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-27.31%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.31%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.25%	-12.71%	-8.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.91%	-7.03%	-0.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	12.14%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FEPG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.74%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	47.18%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.50%	48.90%	-31.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.50%	25.49%	-7.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.50%	24.82%	-7.32%