RMAP.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAP.L returned 19.94%/yr vs 16.35%/yr for EQGB.L. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. RMAP.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EQGB.L.

Performance

RMAP.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMAP.L achieves a 3.85% return, which is significantly lower than EQGB.L's 18.86% return.

RMAP.L

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -1.33%
• YTD: 3.85%
• 6M: 5.42%
• 1Y: 33.56%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 19.94%
• 10Y*: —

EQGB.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 8.42%
• YTD: 18.86%
• 6M: 18.41%
• 1Y: 39.13%
• 3Y*: 27.25%
• 5Y*: 16.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	3.85%	53.50%	28.00%	7.09%	11.74%	-2.81%	10.34%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	18.86%	19.59%	26.12%	53.92%	-35.07%	27.68%	30.17%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAP.L and EQGB.L is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2020	-0.06

The correlation between RMAP.L and EQGB.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (5 years) to 0.17 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 28
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

RMAP.L vs. EQGB.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 Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.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	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	2.46	-1.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	3.41	-2.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.42	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.22	3.44	-2.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.43	12.32	-9.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is lower than the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAP.L and EQGB.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

	RMAP.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70	2.46	-1.76
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81	0.78	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	0.91	-0.21

Drawdowns

RMAP.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -36.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and EQGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMAP.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.31%	-36.77%	+9.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.31%	-11.33%	-15.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.31%	-22.76%	-4.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.31%	-36.77%	+9.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.98%	-0.81%	-18.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.28%	-7.52%	+0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.76%	3.17%	+10.59%

Volatility

RMAP.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) have volatilities of 5.08% and 4.92%, 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

	RMAP.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.08%	4.92%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.92%	11.88%	+8.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.58%	15.81%	+31.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.84%	20.95%	+3.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.73%	21.25%	+2.48%

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

RMAP.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than EQGB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMAP.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%
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%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RMAP.L and EQGB.L have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

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

RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAP.L and 0.35% for EQGB.L.