PMLP.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PMLP.L (HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - PMLP.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Energy NR USD, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PMLP.L returned 19.87%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for RMAP.L. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PMLP.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.

Performance

PMLP.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF (PMLP.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PMLP.L achieves a 26.71% return, which is significantly higher than RMAP.L's 3.07% return.

PMLP.L

• 1D: 1.96%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 26.71%
• 6M: 26.31%
• 1Y: 28.41%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: 19.87%
• 10Y*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: -2.94%
• YTD: 3.07%
• 6M: 4.24%
• 1Y: 33.07%
• 3Y*: 27.73%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PMLP.L HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF	26.71%	-1.40%	35.81%	7.61%	35.33%	34.88%	8.45%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	3.07%	53.50%	28.00%	7.09%	11.74%	-2.81%	-8.09%

Correlation

The correlation between PMLP.L and RMAP.L is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 3, 2020	0.04

The correlation between PMLP.L and RMAP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (1 year) to 0.05 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

PMLP.L

PMLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 44
PMLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
PMLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
PMLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 39
PMLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
PMLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF (PMLP.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.

	PMLP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	0.69	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	1.26	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.30	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	1.21	+1.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.58	2.41	+5.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current PMLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is higher than the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PMLP.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

	PMLP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.50	0.69	+0.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.02	0.81	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.28	0.70	+0.58

Drawdowns

PMLP.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PMLP.L drawdown since its inception was -20.50%, smaller than the maximum RMAP.L drawdown of -27.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PMLP.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	PMLP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.50%	-27.31%	+6.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.82%	-27.31%	+16.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.50%	-27.31%	+6.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.50%	-27.31%	+6.81%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.31%	-19.60%	+15.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.88%	-7.27%	+1.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.73%	13.70%	-9.97%

Volatility

PMLP.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF (PMLP.L) has a higher volatility of 7.40% compared to HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) at 5.07%. This indicates that PMLP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PMLP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.40%	5.07%	+2.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.48%	19.91%	-4.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.87%	47.58%	-28.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.86%	24.84%	-4.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.34%	23.74%	-2.40%

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

PMLP.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAP.L's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

PMLP.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

PMLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.74%, while RMAP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PMLP.L HANetf Alerian Midstream Energy Dividend UCITS ETF	2.74%	3.31%	3.37%	6.48%	6.12%	6.57%	4.17%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

PMLP.L and RMAP.L have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, RMAP.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, PMLP.L or RMAP.L?

RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for PMLP.L.

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

PMLP.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. PMLP.L tracks MSCI World/Energy NR USD, while RMAP.L tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for PMLP.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.