SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L
SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SGLN.L returned 20.12%/yr vs 19.94%/yr for RMAP.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SGLN.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.
Performance
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with SGLN.L having a 3.89% return and RMAP.L slightly lower at 3.85%.
SGLN.L
- 1D
- 0.70%
- 1M
- -1.36%
- YTD
- 3.89%
- 6M
- 5.42%
- 1Y
- 33.75%
- 3Y*
- 28.17%
- 5Y*
- 20.12%
- 10Y*
- 14.27%
RMAP.L
- 1D
- 0.76%
- 1M
- -1.33%
- YTD
- 3.85%
- 6M
- 5.42%
- 1Y
- 33.56%
- 3Y*
- 27.99%
- 5Y*
- 19.94%
- 10Y*
- —
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 3.89% | 53.66% | 28.20% | 7.24% | 11.84% | -2.57% | 11.36% |
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC | 3.85% | 53.50% | 28.00% | 7.09% | 11.74% | -2.81% | 10.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between SGLN.L and RMAP.L is 0.98 - 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 | 0.98 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2020 | 0.94 |
The correlation between SGLN.L and RMAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.99 - 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
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L — Risk / Return Rank
SGLN.L
RMAP.L
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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.
| SGLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.75 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.30 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 1.22 | +0.69 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.05 | 2.43 | +2.61 |
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
| SGLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.45 | 0.70 | +0.75 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.23 | 0.81 | +0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.55 | 0.71 | -0.16 |
Drawdowns
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SGLN.L drawdown since its inception was -41.71%, which is greater than RMAP.L's maximum drawdown of -27.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGLN.L and RMAP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SGLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.71% | -27.31% | -14.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.57% | -27.31% | +9.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.57% | -27.31% | +9.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.57% | -27.31% | +9.74% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.91% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.01% | -18.98% | +2.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.76% | -7.28% | -7.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.67% | 13.76% | -7.09% |
Volatility
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) have volatilities of 5.08% and 5.08%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SGLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.08% | 5.08% | 0.00% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.08% | 19.92% | +0.16% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.19% | 47.58% | -24.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.30% | 24.84% | -8.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.78% | 23.73% | -7.95% |
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
SGLN.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than RMAP.L's 0.22% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
SGLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither SGLN.L nor RMAP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.98, SGLN.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.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAP.L.
SGLN.L is categorized as Gold, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price, while RMAP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for SGLN.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.
Find the right allocation for SGLN.L and RMAP.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