URNP.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

URNP.L (HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF Acc) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - URNP.L is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Natural Resources TR USD, while RMAP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, URNP.L returned 25.15%/yr vs 27.99%/yr for RMAP.L. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. URNP.L charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.

Performance

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF Acc (URNP.L) and HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, URNP.L achieves a 15.46% return, which is significantly higher than RMAP.L's 3.85% return.

URNP.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.77%
• YTD: 15.46%
• 6M: 11.40%
• 1Y: 59.87%
• 3Y*: 25.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -1.33%
• YTD: 3.85%
• 6M: 5.42%
• 1Y: 33.56%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 19.94%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
URNP.L HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF Acc	15.46%	33.02%	-12.04%	50.65%	-9.79%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	3.85%	53.50%	28.00%	7.09%	-1.38%

Correlation

The correlation between URNP.L and RMAP.L is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022	0.20

Over the past year, URNP.L and RMAP.L have become more correlated (0.41) than their long-term average of 0.20, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

URNP.L

URNP.L Risk / Return Rank: 39
URNP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
URNP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
URNP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
URNP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
URNP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 35

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 28
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF Acc (URNP.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.

	URNP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	0.70	+0.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	1.27	+0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.30	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	1.22	+1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.24	2.43	+2.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current URNP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is higher than the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of URNP.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

	URNP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	0.70	+0.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.71	-0.30

Drawdowns

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum URNP.L drawdown since its inception was -51.01%, 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 URNP.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	URNP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.01%	-27.31%	-23.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.71%	-27.31%	+2.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.01%	-27.31%	-23.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.31%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.95%	-18.98%	-0.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.85%	-7.28%	-10.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.38%	13.76%	-2.38%

Volatility

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

HANetf Sprott Uranium Miners UCITS ETF Acc (URNP.L) has a higher volatility of 12.68% compared to HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) at 5.08%. This indicates that URNP.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

	URNP.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.68%	5.08%	+7.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.75%	19.92%	+11.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	45.52%	47.58%	-2.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.93%	24.84%	+15.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.93%	23.73%	+16.20%

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

URNP.L has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAP.L's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

URNP.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

URNP.L and RMAP.L have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, RMAP.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, URNP.L or RMAP.L?

RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for URNP.L.

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

URNP.L is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while RMAP.L is Precious Metals. URNP.L tracks S&P Global Natural Resources TR USD, while RMAP.L tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for URNP.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.