SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L
SSLN.L (iShares Physical Silver ETC) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - SSLN.L is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SSLN.L returned 22.87%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for RMAP.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SSLN.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.
Performance
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SSLN.L achieves a 2.69% return, which is significantly lower than RMAP.L's 3.07% return.
SSLN.L
- 1D
- -3.04%
- 1M
- -2.09%
- YTD
- 2.69%
- 6M
- 23.96%
- 1Y
- 113.86%
- 3Y*
- 41.85%
- 5Y*
- 22.87%
- 10Y*
- 16.77%
RMAP.L
- 1D
- -1.18%
- 1M
- -2.94%
- YTD
- 3.07%
- 6M
- 4.24%
- 1Y
- 33.07%
- 3Y*
- 27.73%
- 5Y*
- 19.76%
- 10Y*
- —
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SSLN.L iShares Physical Silver ETC | 2.69% | 130.26% | 23.21% | -6.20% | 15.75% | -11.64% | 36.70% |
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC | 3.07% | 53.50% | 28.00% | 7.09% | 11.74% | -2.81% | 10.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between SSLN.L and RMAP.L is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.66 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2020 | 0.64 |
The correlation between SSLN.L and RMAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.71 - 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
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L — Risk / Return Rank
SSLN.L
RMAP.L
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Silver ETC (SSLN.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.
| SSLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | 1.30 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.92 | 1.21 | +1.72 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.46 | 2.41 | +4.05 |
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
| SSLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.08 | 0.69 | +1.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.69 | 0.81 | -0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.57 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.17 | 0.70 | -0.53 |
Drawdowns
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SSLN.L drawdown since its inception was -69.95%, 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 SSLN.L and RMAP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SSLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -69.95% | -27.31% | -42.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -38.72% | -27.31% | -11.41% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.72% | -27.31% | -11.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.72% | -27.31% | -11.41% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -33.93% | -19.60% | -14.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -45.32% | -7.27% | -38.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.56% | 13.70% | +3.86% |
Volatility
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Physical Silver ETC (SSLN.L) has a higher volatility of 16.55% compared to HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) at 5.07%. This indicates that SSLN.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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SSLN.L | RMAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.55% | 5.07% | +11.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 52.03% | 19.91% | +32.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 54.53% | 47.58% | +6.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.31% | 24.84% | +8.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 29.70% | 23.74% | +5.96% |
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
SSLN.L has a 0.20% 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
SSLN.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither SSLN.L nor RMAP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
SSLN.L and RMAP.L have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SSLN.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SSLN.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAP.L.
SSLN.L is categorized as Silver, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. SSLN.L tracks LBMA Silver Price, while RMAP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for SSLN.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.
Find the right allocation for SSLN.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