GSLC.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GSLC.L (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity UCITS ETF CLASS USD (Acc.)) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - GSLC.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GSLC.L returned 12.75%/yr vs 18.51%/yr for RMAP.L. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GSLC.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.

Performance

GSLC.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity UCITS ETF CLASS USD (Acc.) (GSLC.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GSLC.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, GSLC.L achieves a 9.22% return, which is significantly higher than RMAP.L's 2.83% return.

GSLC.L

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 5.77%
• YTD: 9.22%
• 6M: 11.51%
• 1Y: 23.98%
• 3Y*: 20.98%
• 5Y*: 12.75%
• 10Y*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -3.96%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 4.80%
• 1Y: 32.18%
• 3Y*: 30.99%
• 5Y*: 18.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GSLC.L Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity UCITS ETF CLASS USD (Acc.)	9.22%	16.46%	23.04%	25.10%	-18.10%	26.60%	11.04%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	2.83%	65.08%	25.86%	12.74%	-0.20%	-3.69%	16.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GSLC.L and RMAP.L is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2020	0.07

The correlation between GSLC.L and RMAP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

GSLC.L

GSLC.L Risk / Return Rank: 53
GSLC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GSLC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
GSLC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 53
GSLC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
GSLC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 27
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 47
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity UCITS ETF CLASS USD (Acc.) (GSLC.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.

	GSLC.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.80	0.67	+1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	1.23	+1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.27	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	1.16	+1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.70	2.39	+7.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current GSLC.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.80, which is higher than the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSLC.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GSLC.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.80	0.67	+1.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96	0.73	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.18	0.70	+0.48

Drawdowns

GSLC.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSLC.L drawdown since its inception was -29.20%, which is greater than RMAP.L's maximum drawdown of -27.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSLC.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSLC.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.20%	-27.53%	-1.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.07%	-27.53%	+17.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.98%	-27.53%	+8.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.89%	-27.53%	+3.64%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-18.91%	+18.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.61%	-7.93%	+3.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	13.41%	-10.94%

Volatility

GSLC.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity UCITS ETF CLASS USD (Acc.) (GSLC.L) is 3.98%, while HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) has a volatility of 5.64%. This indicates that GSLC.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RMAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSLC.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.98%	5.64%	-1.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.88%	20.89%	-11.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.30%	47.96%	-34.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.29%	25.62%	-6.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.29%	24.68%	-3.39%

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

GSLC.L has a 0.14% 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

GSLC.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSLC.L and RMAP.L in my portfolio?

GSLC.L and RMAP.L have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GSLC.L or RMAP.L?

On fees, GSLC.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSLC.L or RMAP.L?

GSLC.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAP.L.

What is the main difference between GSLC.L and RMAP.L?

GSLC.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. GSLC.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while RMAP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for GSLC.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.