RMAU.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RMAU.L returned 18.29%/yr vs 18.51%/yr for RMAP.L. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.22% expense ratio.

Performance

RMAU.L vs. RMAP.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 The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

RMAU.L is traded in USD, while RMAP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the RMAP.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 higher than RMAP.L's 2.83% 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*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -3.96%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 4.80%
• 1Y: 32.18%
• 3Y*: 30.99%
• 5Y*: 18.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	3.03%	64.57%	25.96%	13.29%	-0.19%	-4.14%	14.46%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	2.83%	65.08%	25.86%	12.74%	-0.20%	-3.69%	14.28%

Correlation

The correlation between RMAU.L and RMAP.L is 0.96 - 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	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2020	0.86

The correlation between RMAU.L and RMAP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.86 (all time) to 0.96 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RMAU.L vs. RMAP.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

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 27
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 47
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. RMAP.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 The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.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	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	0.67	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.72	1.23	+0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.27	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	1.16	+0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.76	2.39	+2.36
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. RMAP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is higher than the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMAU.L and RMAP.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	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	0.67	+0.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.06	0.73	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.70	+0.11

Drawdowns

RMAU.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMAU.L drawdown since its inception was -21.56%, smaller than the maximum RMAP.L drawdown of -27.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMAU.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMAU.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.56%	-27.53%	+5.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.15%	-27.53%	+9.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.15%	-27.53%	+9.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.17%	-27.53%	+6.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.50%	-18.91%	+2.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.08%	-7.93%	+0.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.77%	13.41%	-6.64%

Volatility

RMAU.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) has a higher volatility of 6.47% compared to HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) at 5.64%. This indicates that RMAU.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMAU.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.47%	5.64%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.86%	20.89%	+0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.82%	47.96%	-23.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.63%	25.62%	-7.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.35%	24.68%	-3.33%

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

Both RMAU.L and RMAP.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

RMAU.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, RMAU.L and RMAP.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.

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

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

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

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

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

RMAU.L is categorized as Commodities, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price, while RMAP.L tracks Gold.