RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L
Compare and contrast key facts about HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L).
RMAP.L and SGLN.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RMAP.L is a passively managed fund by HANetf that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Feb 12, 2020. SGLN.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the LBMA Gold Price. It was launched on Apr 8, 2011. Both RMAP.L and SGLN.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC | 9.42% | 53.50% | 28.00% | 7.09% | 11.74% | -2.81% | 10.34% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 9.15% | 53.66% | 28.20% | 7.24% | 11.84% | -2.57% | 11.36% |
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RMAP.L having a 9.42% return and SGLN.L slightly lower at 9.15%.
RMAP.L
- 1D
- 2.06%
- 1M
- -9.72%
- YTD
- 9.42%
- 6M
- 22.78%
- 1Y
- 44.95%
- 3Y*
- 29.59%
- 5Y*
- 22.75%
- 10Y*
- —
SGLN.L
- 1D
- 1.56%
- 1M
- -10.01%
- YTD
- 9.15%
- 6M
- 22.38%
- 1Y
- 44.60%
- 3Y*
- 29.65%
- 5Y*
- 22.83%
- 10Y*
- 14.93%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Return for Risk
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L — Risk / Return Rank
RMAP.L
SGLN.L
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.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 iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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 | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.93 | 1.82 | -0.89 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.52 | 2.27 | -0.75 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.35 | +0.01 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.63 | 2.52 | -0.89 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.68 | 10.45 | -6.77 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RMAP.L | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 | 1.82 | -0.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.93 | 1.42 | -0.48 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.95 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.76 | 0.58 | +0.19 |
Correlation
The correlation between RMAP.L and SGLN.L is 0.94, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither RMAP.L nor SGLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum SGLN.L drawdown of -41.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and SGLN.L.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMAP.L | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.31% | -41.71% | +14.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.31% | -17.57% | -9.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.31% | -17.57% | -9.74% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -21.91% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.64% | -11.76% | -2.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.03% | -14.78% | +7.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.11% | 4.24% | +7.87% |
Volatility
RMAP.L vs. SGLN.L - Volatility Comparison
HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) have volatilities of 11.49% and 11.52%, 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.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RMAP.L | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.49% | 11.52% | -0.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 47.02% | 21.09% | +25.93% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 48.07% | 24.39% | +23.68% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.72% | 16.13% | +8.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.89% | 15.74% | +8.15% |