RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L
RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and CLMP.L (HANetf iClima Global Decarbonisation Enablers UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CLMP.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAP.L returned 19.76%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CLMP.L. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMAP.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CLMP.L.
Performance
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RMAP.L achieves a 3.07% return, which is significantly lower than CLMP.L's 19.42% return.
RMAP.L
- 1D
- -1.18%
- 1M
- -2.94%
- YTD
- 3.07%
- 6M
- 4.24%
- 1Y
- 33.07%
- 3Y*
- 27.73%
- 5Y*
- 19.76%
- 10Y*
- —
CLMP.L
- 1D
- 0.93%
- 1M
- 8.64%
- YTD
- 19.42%
- 6M
- 18.50%
- 1Y
- 45.03%
- 3Y*
- 5.01%
- 5Y*
- 0.10%
- 10Y*
- —
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC | 3.07% | 53.50% | 28.00% | 7.09% | 11.74% | -2.81% | -0.93% |
CLMP.L HANetf iClima Global Decarbonisation Enablers UCITS ETF | 19.42% | 17.77% | -15.12% | -1.33% | -19.28% | 6.67% | 6.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between RMAP.L and CLMP.L is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2020 | 0.04 |
The correlation between RMAP.L and CLMP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (5 years) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L — Risk / Return Rank
RMAP.L
CLMP.L
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) and HANetf iClima Global Decarbonisation Enablers UCITS ETF (CLMP.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.
| RMAP.L | CLMP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.41 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.21 | 1.51 | -0.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.41 | 2.40 | +0.01 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RMAP.L | CLMP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 | 0.96 | -0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.81 | 0.00 | +0.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.70 | 0.04 | +0.66 |
Drawdowns
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum CLMP.L drawdown of -48.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and CLMP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMAP.L | CLMP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.31% | -48.75% | +21.44% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.31% | -29.66% | +2.35% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.31% | -40.47% | +13.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.31% | -48.75% | +21.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.60% | -13.51% | -6.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.27% | -23.78% | +16.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.70% | 18.71% | -5.01% |
Volatility
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) is 5.07%, while HANetf iClima Global Decarbonisation Enablers UCITS ETF (CLMP.L) has a volatility of 6.55%. This indicates that RMAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLMP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RMAP.L | CLMP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.07% | 6.55% | -1.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.91% | 13.14% | +6.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 47.58% | 46.48% | +1.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.84% | 34.89% | -10.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.74% | 34.13% | -10.39% |
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
RMAP.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than CLMP.L's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
RMAP.L vs. CLMP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither RMAP.L nor CLMP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
RMAP.L and CLMP.L have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CLMP.L.
RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CLMP.L is Global Equities. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while CLMP.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAP.L and 0.65% for CLMP.L.
Find the right allocation for RMAP.L and CLMP.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer