PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RMAP.L vs. VWRD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RMAP.L vs. VWRD.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 Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF (VWRD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RMAP.L is traded in GBp, while VWRD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the VWRD.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 VWRD.L's 12.15% 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*

VWRD.L

1D
-0.42%
1M
5.60%
YTD
12.15%
6M
12.76%
1Y
30.37%
3Y*
18.14%
5Y*
12.46%
10Y*
13.64%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
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%
VWRD.L
Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
12.15%13.66%19.71%16.20%-8.46%19.64%6.64%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAP.L and VWRD.L is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.09

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2020

0.02

The correlation between RMAP.L and VWRD.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (all time) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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. VWRD.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: 2727
Overall Rank
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

VWRD.L
VWRD.L Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
VWRD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VWRD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
VWRD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
VWRD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
VWRD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
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. VWRD.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 Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF (VWRD.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.LVWRD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.85

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.48

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.21

4.34

-3.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.41

16.74

-14.33

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

The current RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the VWRD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAP.L and VWRD.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RMAP.LVWRD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.69

2.55

-1.85

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.81

0.89

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.70

0.90

-0.20

Drawdowns

RMAP.L vs. VWRD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, which is greater than VWRD.L's maximum drawdown of -25.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and VWRD.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RMAP.LVWRD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.31%

-25.84%

-1.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.31%

-6.96%

-20.35%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.31%

-18.11%

-9.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.31%

-18.11%

-9.20%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-19.60%

-0.42%

-19.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.27%

-3.47%

-3.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.70%

1.81%

+11.89%

Volatility

RMAP.L vs. VWRD.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) has a higher volatility of 5.07% compared to Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF (VWRD.L) at 3.74%. This indicates that RMAP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VWRD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RMAP.LVWRD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.07%

3.74%

+1.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.91%

9.29%

+10.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

47.58%

11.90%

+35.68%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.84%

14.08%

+10.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.74%

15.29%

+8.45%

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

Both RMAP.L and VWRD.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. VWRD.L - Dividend Comparison

RMAP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VWRD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
VWRD.L
Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF
1.24%1.38%1.52%1.69%2.05%1.48%1.47%1.88%2.29%1.82%2.04%2.07%

Frequently Asked Questions


RMAP.L and VWRD.L have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

RMAP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while VWRD.L is Global Equities. RMAP.L tracks Gold, while VWRD.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and Vanguard.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RMAP.L and VWRD.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