RMAP.L vs. GDGB.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAP.L returned 19.76%/yr vs 20.04%/yr for GDGB.L. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RMAP.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for GDGB.L.

Performance

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.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 VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

RMAP.L is traded in GBp, while GDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the GDGB.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMAP.L achieves a 3.07% return, which is significantly higher than GDGB.L's 0.24% 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*: —

GDGB.L

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: -0.28%
• YTD: 0.24%
• 6M: 5.08%
• 1Y: 65.54%
• 3Y*: 37.36%
• 5Y*: 20.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.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%	10.34%
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	0.24%	138.26%	11.24%	3.69%	3.04%	-10.47%	17.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAP.L and GDGB.L is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2020	0.63

The correlation between RMAP.L and GDGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (all time) to 0.76 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.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: 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

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 41
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 40
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. GDGB.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 VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.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	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.56	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.02	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.26	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.21	2.25	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.41	5.80	-3.40
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. GDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAP.L and GDGB.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	GDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69	1.56	-0.87
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81	0.62	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.50	+0.20

Drawdowns

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum GDGB.L drawdown of -40.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and GDGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMAP.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.31%	-40.80%	+13.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.31%	-28.97%	+1.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.31%	-28.97%	+1.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.31%	-35.49%	+8.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.60%	-25.23%	+5.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.27%	-17.51%	+10.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.70%	11.26%	+2.44%

Volatility

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) is 5.07%, while VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a volatility of 14.27%. This indicates that RMAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMAP.L	GDGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.07%	14.27%	-9.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.91%	33.43%	-13.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.58%	41.78%	+5.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.84%	32.58%	-7.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.74%	32.12%	-8.38%

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

RMAP.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than GDGB.L's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMAP.L vs. GDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RMAP.L and GDGB.L have a correlation of 0.76, 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 GDGB.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 GDGB.L?

RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

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

RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while GDGB.L is Gold. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAP.L and 0.53% for GDGB.L.