RMAU.L vs. NATP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) and NATP.L (HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while NATP.L is a Aerospace & Defense fund tracking the EQM Future of Defence Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RMAU.L returned 32.29% vs 20.19% for NATP.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMAU.L charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for NATP.L.

Performance

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) and HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP (NATP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

RMAU.L is traded in USD, while NATP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the NATP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMAU.L achieves a 3.03% return, which is significantly lower than NATP.L's 12.88% return.

RMAU.L

• 1D: -1.45%
• 1M: -4.23%
• YTD: 3.03%
• 6M: 5.15%
• 1Y: 32.29%
• 3Y*: 30.94%
• 5Y*: 18.29%
• 10Y*: —

NATP.L

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: 9.03%
• YTD: 12.88%
• 6M: 17.18%
• 1Y: 20.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	3.03%	64.57%	25.96%	7.12%
NATP.L HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP	12.88%	54.58%	32.42%	16.01%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAU.L and NATP.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.21

Return for Risk

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

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

NATP.L

NATP.L Risk / Return Rank: 30
NATP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
NATP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
NATP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
NATP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
NATP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

RMAU.L vs. NATP.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 HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP (NATP.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	NATP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.02	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.72	1.54	+0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.18	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	1.58	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.76	3.80	+0.96
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the NATP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAU.L and NATP.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

	RMAU.L	NATP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	1.02	+0.28
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	2.11	-1.30

Drawdowns

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAU.L drawdown since its inception was -21.56%, which is greater than NATP.L's maximum drawdown of -13.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAU.L and NATP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMAU.L	NATP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.56%	-13.60%	-7.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.15%	-12.76%	-5.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.50%	-2.20%	-14.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.08%	-2.62%	-4.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.77%	5.30%	+1.47%

Volatility

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Volatility Comparison

The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) has a higher volatility of 6.47% compared to HANetf Future of Defence UCITS ETF Acc GBP (NATP.L) at 5.80%. This indicates that RMAU.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NATP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMAU.L	NATP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.47%	5.80%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.86%	15.74%	+6.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.82%	19.79%	+5.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.63%	19.23%	-1.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.35%	19.23%	+2.12%

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

RMAU.L has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than NATP.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMAU.L vs. NATP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RMAU.L and NATP.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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.

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

RMAU.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for NATP.L.

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

RMAU.L is categorized as Commodities, while NATP.L is Aerospace & Defense. RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price, while NATP.L tracks EQM Future of Defence Index. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for RMAU.L and 0.49% for NATP.L.