RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L
RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) and FEPG.L (REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while FEPG.L is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by HANetf. RMAU.L is passively managed, while FEPG.L is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. RMAU.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for FEPG.L.
Performance
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RMAU.L achieves a 3.70% return, which is significantly higher than FEPG.L's -4.53% return.
RMAU.L
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- -2.38%
- YTD
- 3.70%
- 6M
- 6.00%
- 1Y
- 32.20%
- 3Y*
- 31.36%
- 5Y*
- 18.44%
- 10Y*
- —
FEPG.L
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- 5.17%
- YTD
- -4.53%
- 6M
- -7.06%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities | 3.70% | 28.73% |
FEPG.L REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF | -4.53% | 1.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between RMAU.L and FEPG.L is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 4, 2025 | -0.01 |
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
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L — Risk / Return Rank
RMAU.L
FEPG.L
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) and REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF (FEPG.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.
| RMAU.L | FEPG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.77 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.69 | — | — |
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
| RMAU.L | FEPG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.06 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.81 | -0.21 | +1.02 |
Drawdowns
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMAU.L drawdown since its inception was -21.56%, smaller than the maximum FEPG.L drawdown of -23.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAU.L and FEPG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMAU.L | FEPG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.56% | -23.44% | +1.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.15% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.15% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.17% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.95% | -13.04% | -2.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.09% | -9.61% | +2.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.84% | — | — |
Volatility
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RMAU.L | FEPG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.42% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.86% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.82% | 17.30% | +7.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.62% | 17.30% | +0.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.34% | 17.30% | +4.04% |
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
RMAU.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than FEPG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
RMAU.L vs. FEPG.L - Dividend Comparison
RMAU.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FEPG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
FEPG.L REX Tech Innovation Premium Income UCITS ETF | 0.27% | 0.15% |
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RMAU.L and FEPG.L have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RMAU.L is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RMAU.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for FEPG.L.
RMAU.L is categorized as Commodities, while FEPG.L is Derivative Income. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAU.L and 0.65% for FEPG.L.
Find the right allocation for RMAU.L and FEPG.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