RMAP.L vs. RMAU.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAP.L returned 19.76%/yr vs 19.56%/yr for RMAU.L. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.22% expense ratio.

Performance

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.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 The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

RMAP.L is traded in GBp, while RMAU.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the RMAU.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 lower than RMAU.L's 3.41% 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*: —

RMAU.L

• 1D: -1.19%
• 1M: -3.16%
• YTD: 3.41%
• 6M: 4.60%
• 1Y: 33.22%
• 3Y*: 27.70%
• 5Y*: 19.56%
• 10Y*: —

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

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.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%	8.43%
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	3.41%	52.84%	28.16%	7.63%	11.68%	-3.23%	8.55%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAP.L and RMAU.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2020	0.84

The correlation between RMAP.L and RMAU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.84 (all time) to 0.95 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.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

RMAU.L

RMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 35
RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
RMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
RMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 38
RMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
RMAU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. RMAU.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 The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.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	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.37	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	1.79	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.27	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.21	1.81	-0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.41	4.98	-2.57
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. RMAU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAP.L and RMAU.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	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69	1.37	-0.68
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81	1.17	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.80	-0.10

Drawdowns

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, which is greater than RMAU.L's maximum drawdown of -23.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and RMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMAP.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.31%	-23.24%	-4.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.31%	-18.32%	-8.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.31%	-18.32%	-8.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.31%	-18.32%	-8.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.60%	-16.61%	-2.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.27%	-6.61%	-0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.70%	6.66%	+7.04%

Volatility

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) is 5.07%, while The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) has a volatility of 6.12%. This indicates that RMAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RMAU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMAP.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.07%	6.12%	-1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.91%	21.27%	-1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.58%	24.11%	+23.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.84%	17.04%	+7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.74%	20.71%	+3.03%

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

Both RMAP.L and RMAU.L have an expense ratio of 0.22%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

RMAP.L vs. RMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.95, RMAP.L and RMAU.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

Both ETFs have the same 0.22% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMAP.L or RMAU.L?

RMAP.L and RMAU.L have the same expense ratio: 0.22% per year.

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

RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while RMAU.L is Commodities. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price.