GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GOLB.L (Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF) and ESGP.L (HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF) are both Precious Metals funds tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, from China Post Global and HANetf respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GOLB.L returned 40.72%/yr vs 33.61%/yr for ESGP.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GOLB.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for ESGP.L.

Performance

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.L) and HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GOLB.L is traded in GBP, while ESGP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the ESGP.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GOLB.L achieves a 5.89% return, which is significantly higher than ESGP.L's 2.21% return.

GOLB.L

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: -4.70%
• YTD: 5.89%
• 6M: 9.71%
• 1Y: 72.65%
• 3Y*: 40.72%
• 5Y*: 20.34%
• 10Y*: 16.54%

ESGP.L

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: -4.72%
• YTD: 2.21%
• 6M: 6.19%
• 1Y: 58.31%
• 3Y*: 33.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GOLB.L Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF	5.89%	138.45%	14.05%	0.34%	1.34%	-2.81%
ESGP.L HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF	2.21%	136.71%	3.17%	-0.39%	2.14%	-3.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GOLB.L and ESGP.L is 0.96 - 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	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2021	0.94

The correlation between GOLB.L and ESGP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GOLB.L	ESGP.L
Industrials	28.2%	-
Healthcare	20.3%	-
Financial Services	16.2%	-
Real Estate	13.8%	-
Technology	9.1%	-
Communication Services	5.9%	-
Basic Materials	3.7%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GOLB.L

GOLB.L Risk / Return Rank: 48
GOLB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GOLB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
GOLB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 46
GOLB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GOLB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 42

ESGP.L

ESGP.L Risk / Return Rank: 41
ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
ESGP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
ESGP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 41
ESGP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
ESGP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.L) and HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.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.

	GOLB.L	ESGP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	1.53	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	1.97	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.26	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	2.18	+0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.72	5.45	+1.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GOLB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is comparable to the ESGP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GOLB.L and ESGP.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GOLB.L	ESGP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.78	1.53	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	0.60	-0.46

Drawdowns

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GOLB.L drawdown since its inception was -84.29%, which is greater than ESGP.L's maximum drawdown of -36.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GOLB.L and ESGP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GOLB.L	ESGP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-84.29%	-36.54%	-47.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.11%	-28.67%	+0.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.11%	-28.67%	+0.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.56%	-24.33%	+0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-49.39%	-13.50%	-35.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.08%	11.48%	-0.40%

Volatility

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Volatility Comparison

Market Access NYSE Arca Gold Bugs UCITS ETF (GOLB.L) and HANetf AuAg ESG Gold Mining UCITS ETF (ESGP.L) have volatilities of 14.80% and 15.32%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	GOLB.L	ESGP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.80%	15.32%	-0.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.10%	32.59%	+0.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.89%	40.84%	+1.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.81%	33.19%	+0.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.39%	33.19%	+1.20%

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GOLB.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ESGP.L's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

GOLB.L vs. ESGP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GOLB.L nor ESGP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GOLB.L and ESGP.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, GOLB.L and ESGP.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, GOLB.L or ESGP.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, GOLB.L or ESGP.L?

ESGP.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GOLB.L.

What is the main difference between GOLB.L and ESGP.L?

Both ETFs track EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD. They also come from different issuers: China Post Global and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for GOLB.L and 0.60% for ESGP.L.