GLDA.L vs. RMAU.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

GLDA.L (Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)) and RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDA.L is a Gold fund tracking the Gold, while RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDA.L returned 17.82%/yr vs 18.00%/yr for RMAU.L. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLDA.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAU.L.

Performance

GLDA.L vs. RMAU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDA.L achieves a -6.28% return, which is significantly lower than RMAU.L's -4.81% return.

GLDA.L

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: -7.36%
• 6M: -12.69%
• YTD: -6.28%
• 1Y: 20.45%
• 3Y*: 26.05%
• 5Y*: 17.82%
• 10Y*: —

RMAU.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.16%
• 6M: -11.40%
• YTD: -4.81%
• 1Y: 22.04%
• 3Y*: 26.43%
• 5Y*: 18.00%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GLDA.L Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)	-6.28%	53.56%	28.19%	7.27%	11.83%	7,023.54%	19.92%
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	-6.50%	52.86%	28.16%	7.63%	11.68%	-3.26%	14.17%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDA.L and RMAU.L is 0.97 - 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	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2020	0.85

The correlation between GLDA.L and RMAU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.85 (all time) to 0.97 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

GLDA.L

GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 25
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

RMAU.L

RMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 24
RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
RMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
RMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 27
RMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
RMAU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GLDA.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	0.86	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.20	1.23	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.17	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.84	0.90	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.07	2.22	-0.15

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

The current GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is comparable to the RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDA.L and RMAU.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.

Drawdowns

GLDA.L vs. RMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDA.L drawdown since its inception was -24.25%, roughly equal to the maximum RMAU.L drawdown of -24.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDA.L and RMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDA.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.25%	-24.29%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.25%	-24.29%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.25%	-24.29%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.25%	-24.29%	+0.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.25%	-23.23%	-1.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.30%	-6.58%	+1.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.85%	9.90%	-0.05%

Volatility

GLDA.L vs. RMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) is 6.54%, while The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) has a volatility of 7.26%. This indicates that GLDA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RMAU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDA.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.54%	7.26%	-0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.45%	22.50%	-1.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.68%	25.55%	-0.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.94%	17.31%	+4.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2,644.64%	17.48%	+2,627.16%

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

GLDA.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than RMAU.L's 0.22% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GLDA.L vs. RMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.97, GLDA.L and RMAU.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, GLDA.L or RMAU.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, GLDA.L or RMAU.L?

GLDA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAU.L.

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

GLDA.L is categorized as Gold, while RMAU.L is Commodities. GLDA.L tracks Gold, while RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GLDA.L and 0.22% for RMAU.L.