GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO).

GOLD.AS and RGPM.NEO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GOLD.AS is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the LMBA Gold Price PM USD. It was launched on May 21, 2019. RGPM.NEO is an actively managed fund by RBC Global Asset Management.. It was launched on Mar 8, 2023.

Performance

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GOLD.AS Amundi Physical Gold ETC C	6.85%	64.94%	26.36%	11.64%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	8.72%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GOLD.AS achieves a 6.85% return, which is significantly lower than RGPM.NEO's 8.72% return.

GOLD.AS

• 1D: 1.74%
• 1M: -11.92%
• YTD: 6.85%
• 6M: 20.04%
• 1Y: 47.58%
• 3Y*: 32.41%
• 5Y*: 21.53%
• 10Y*: —

RGPM.NEO

• 1D: 7.19%
• 1M: -17.81%
• YTD: 8.72%
• 6M: 25.27%
• 1Y: 94.42%
• 3Y*: 46.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GOLD.AS has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than RGPM.NEO's 1.02% expense ratio.

RGPM.NEO

RBC Global Precious Metals Fund

GOLD.AS

Amundi Physical Gold ETC C

Return for Risk

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GOLD.AS

GOLD.AS Risk / Return Rank: 86
GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GOLD.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
GOLD.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 85
GOLD.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
GOLD.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 88

RGPM.NEO

RGPM.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 91
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 91
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). 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.

	GOLD.AS	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	2.23	-0.41
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	2.44	-0.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.39	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	3.29	-0.58
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.69	12.36	-1.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GOLD.AS and RGPM.NEO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GOLD.AS	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.82	2.23	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.19	1.58	-0.39

Correlation

The correlation between GOLD.AS and RGPM.NEO is 0.44, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Dividend Comparison

Neither GOLD.AS nor RGPM.NEO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GOLD.AS drawdown since its inception was -21.14%, smaller than the maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown of -29.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GOLD.AS and RGPM.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GOLD.AS	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.14%	-29.46%	+8.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.83%	-29.46%	+11.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.00%	-18.31%	+5.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.14%	-7.82%	+1.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	7.84%	-3.33%

Volatility

GOLD.AS vs. RGPM.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) is 11.68%, while RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a volatility of 17.04%. This indicates that GOLD.AS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RGPM.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GOLD.AS	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.68%	17.04%	-5.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.21%	36.23%	-14.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.73%	42.57%	-16.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.86%	31.81%	-14.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.83%	31.81%	-14.98%