NATO.L vs. RMAU.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NATO.L (HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF - Accumulating) and RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both exchange-traded funds - NATO.L is a Aerospace & Defense fund tracking the EQM Future of Defence Index, while RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NATO.L returned 20.56% vs 32.29% for RMAU.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NATO.L charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAU.L.

Performance

NATO.L vs. RMAU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF - Accumulating (NATO.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NATO.L achieves a 13.05% return, which is significantly higher than RMAU.L's 3.03% return.

NATO.L

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 8.86%
• YTD: 13.05%
• 6M: 17.53%
• 1Y: 20.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMAU.L

• 1D: -1.45%
• 1M: -4.23%
• YTD: 3.03%
• 6M: 5.15%
• 1Y: 32.29%
• 3Y*: 30.94%
• 5Y*: 18.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NATO.L HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF - Accumulating	13.05%	54.83%	31.99%	16.64%
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	3.03%	64.57%	25.96%	7.12%

Correlation

The correlation between NATO.L and RMAU.L is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 4, 2023	0.21

Return for Risk

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

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

NATO.L

NATO.L Risk / Return Rank: 28
NATO.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
NATO.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
NATO.L Omega Ratio Rank: 26
NATO.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
NATO.L Martin Ratio Rank: 27

RMAU.L

RMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 35
RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
RMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
RMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 38
RMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
RMAU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF - Accumulating (NATO.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.

	NATO.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.02	1.30	-0.27
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.53	1.72	-0.19
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.25	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.60	1.77	-0.17
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.91	4.76	-0.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current NATO.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is comparable to the RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NATO.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NATO.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.02	1.30	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.46	0.81	+0.65

Drawdowns

NATO.L vs. RMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NATO.L drawdown since its inception was -21.84%, roughly equal to the maximum RMAU.L drawdown of -21.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NATO.L and RMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	NATO.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.84%	-21.56%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.79%	-18.15%	+5.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.15%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.14%	-16.50%	+14.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.63%	-7.08%	+4.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.25%	6.77%	-1.52%

Volatility

NATO.L vs. RMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF - Accumulating (NATO.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) have volatilities of 6.19% and 6.47%, 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

	NATO.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.19%	6.47%	-0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.99%	21.86%	-5.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.05%	24.82%	-4.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.57%	17.63%	+9.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.57%	21.35%	+6.22%

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

NATO.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAU.L's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

NATO.L vs. RMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

NATO.L and RMAU.L have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NATO.L or RMAU.L?

On fees, RMAU.L is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NATO.L or RMAU.L?

RMAU.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for NATO.L.

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

NATO.L is categorized as Aerospace & Defense, while RMAU.L is Commodities. NATO.L tracks EQM Future of Defence Index, while RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for NATO.L and 0.22% for RMAU.L.