PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GLDW.L having a -4.94% return and RMAP.L slightly lower at -5.00%.


GLDW.L

1D
0.01%
1M
-9.18%
YTD
-4.94%
6M
-8.54%
1Y
24.63%
3Y*
26.04%
5Y*
18.76%
10Y*

RMAP.L

1D
0.09%
1M
-9.14%
YTD
-5.00%
6M
-8.44%
1Y
24.57%
3Y*
25.90%
5Y*
18.63%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GLDW.L
WisdomTree Core Physical Gold
-4.94%53.57%28.18%7.26%11.82%7,024.45%7.28%
RMAP.L
HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC
-5.00%53.50%27.99%7.09%11.74%-2.96%3.49%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDW.L and RMAP.L is 0.99 - 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

0.99

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.99

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2020

0.97

The correlation between GLDW.L and RMAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

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

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

GLDW.L
GLDW.L Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank

RMAP.L
RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.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.

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.


GLDW.LRMAP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.21

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.06

1.05

+0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.98

2.94

+0.04

GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDW.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is comparable to the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDW.L and RMAP.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDW.L drawdown since its inception was -23.14%, smaller than the maximum RMAP.L drawdown of -24.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDW.L and RMAP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GLDW.LRMAP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.14%

-24.37%

+1.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.14%

-23.34%

+0.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.14%

-23.34%

+0.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.14%

-23.34%

+0.20%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-23.13%

-23.27%

+0.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.12%

-9.27%

+4.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.24%

8.34%

-0.10%

Volatility

GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Core Physical Gold (GLDW.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) have volatilities of 8.05% and 8.09%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GLDW.LRMAP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.05%

8.09%

-0.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.97%

21.09%

-0.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.85%

23.97%

-0.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.75%

21.78%

-0.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

3,005.26%

22.61%

+2,982.65%

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

GLDW.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than RMAP.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

GLDW.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDW.L nor RMAP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.99, GLDW.L and RMAP.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.

On fees, GLDW.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GLDW.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAP.L.

Both ETFs track Gold. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GLDW.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLDW.L and RMAP.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