RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L
RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) and XGDU.L (Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both Precious Metals funds tracking the Gold, from HANetf and Xtrackers respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAP.L returned 19.76%/yr vs 19.75%/yr for XGDU.L. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RMAP.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for XGDU.L.
Performance
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
RMAP.L is traded in GBp, while XGDU.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XGDU.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 XGDU.L's 3.55% 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*
- —
XGDU.L
- 1D
- -1.07%
- 1M
- -3.06%
- YTD
- 3.55%
- 6M
- 4.76%
- 1Y
- 33.49%
- 3Y*
- 27.91%
- 5Y*
- 19.75%
- 10Y*
- —
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.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% | -0.29% |
XGDU.L Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities | 3.55% | 52.97% | 28.40% | 7.78% | 11.98% | -3.90% | 1.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between RMAP.L and XGDU.L is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2020 | 0.86 |
The correlation between RMAP.L and XGDU.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. XGDU.L — Risk / Return Rank
RMAP.L
XGDU.L
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.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 Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities (XGDU.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 | XGDU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.27 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.21 | 1.89 | -0.69 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.41 | 5.07 | -2.66 |
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 | XGDU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 | 1.38 | -0.69 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.81 | 1.18 | -0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.70 | 0.94 | -0.24 |
Drawdowns
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMAP.L drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, which is greater than XGDU.L's maximum drawdown of -22.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAP.L and XGDU.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMAP.L | XGDU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.31% | -22.90% | -4.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.31% | -17.64% | -9.67% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.31% | -17.64% | -9.67% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.31% | -17.64% | -9.67% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.60% | -16.42% | -3.18% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.27% | -6.61% | -0.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.70% | 6.59% | +7.11% |
Volatility
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) is 5.07%, while Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities (XGDU.L) has a volatility of 6.11%. This indicates that RMAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XGDU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RMAP.L | XGDU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.07% | 6.11% | -1.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.91% | 21.23% | -1.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 47.58% | 24.15% | +23.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.84% | 16.77% | +8.07% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.74% | 16.84% | +6.90% |
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
RMAP.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than XGDU.L's 0.12% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
RMAP.L vs. XGDU.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither RMAP.L nor XGDU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, RMAP.L and XGDU.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.
On fees, XGDU.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XGDU.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAP.L.
Both ETFs track Gold. They also come from different issuers: HANetf and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAP.L and 0.12% for XGDU.L.
Find the right allocation for RMAP.L and XGDU.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