RMAP.L vs. METP.L
RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and METP.L (HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while METP.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RMAP.L returned 33.07% vs 1.61% for METP.L. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMAP.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for METP.L.
Performance
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RMAP.L achieves a 3.07% return, which is significantly higher than METP.L's -2.96% 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*
- —
METP.L
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- 9.18%
- YTD
- -2.96%
- 6M
- -8.15%
- 1Y
- 1.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC | 3.07% | 28.57% |
METP.L HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF | -2.96% | 21.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between RMAP.L and METP.L is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025 | 0.13 |
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. METP.L — Risk / Return Rank
RMAP.L
METP.L
RMAP.L vs. METP.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 ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF (METP.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 | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.68 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.09 | +0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.21 | 0.09 | +1.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.41 | 0.16 | +2.25 |
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 | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 | 0.10 | +0.60 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.81 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.70 | 0.33 | +0.37 |
Drawdowns
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum METP.L drawdown of -53.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and METP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMAP.L | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.31% | -53.17% | +25.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.31% | -53.17% | +25.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.31% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.31% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.60% | -39.76% | +20.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.27% | -23.08% | +15.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.70% | 31.79% | -18.09% |
Volatility
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) is 5.07%, while HANetf ETC Group Global Metaverse UCITS ETF (METP.L) has a volatility of 8.47%. This indicates that RMAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than METP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RMAP.L | METP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.07% | 8.47% | -3.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.91% | 19.76% | +0.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 47.58% | 52.01% | -4.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.84% | 50.93% | -26.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.74% | 50.93% | -27.19% |
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
RMAP.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than METP.L's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
RMAP.L vs. METP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither RMAP.L nor METP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
RMAP.L and METP.L have a correlation of 0.21, 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 METP.L.
RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while METP.L is Technology Equities. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while METP.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAP.L and 0.65% for METP.L.
Find the right allocation for RMAP.L and METP.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