XGDG.L vs. RMAP.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

XGDG.L (Xtrackers IE Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC Securities) and RMAP.L (HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC) are both Gold funds - XGDG.L tracks the Gold (GBP Hedged) while RMAP.L tracks the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XGDG.L returned 16.01%/yr vs 18.63%/yr for RMAP.L. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XGDG.L charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAP.L.

Performance

XGDG.L vs. RMAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers IE Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC Securities (XGDG.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, XGDG.L achieves a -7.37% return, which is significantly lower than RMAP.L's -5.00% return.

XGDG.L

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: -10.81%
• YTD: -7.37%
• 6M: -11.17%
• 1Y: 19.38%
• 3Y*: 26.27%
• 5Y*: 16.01%
• 10Y*: —

RMAP.L

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: -9.14%
• YTD: -5.00%
• 6M: -8.44%
• 1Y: 24.57%
• 3Y*: 25.90%
• 5Y*: 18.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
XGDG.L Xtrackers IE Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC Securities	-7.37%	63.15%	25.16%	11.50%	-1.77%	-5.14%	12.54%
RMAP.L HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC	-5.00%	53.50%	27.99%	7.09%	11.74%	-2.96%	-3.19%

Correlation

The correlation between XGDG.L and RMAP.L is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2020	0.80

The correlation between XGDG.L and RMAP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.80 (all time) to 0.94 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

XGDG.L

XGDG.L Risk / Return Rank: 21
XGDG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
XGDG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
XGDG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 22
XGDG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
XGDG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

RMAP.L

RMAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 28
RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
RMAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
RMAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 33
RMAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
RMAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers IE Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC Securities (XGDG.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	XGDG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.73	1.02	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.09	1.42	-0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.21	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.77	1.05	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.23	2.94	-0.71

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

The current XGDG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is comparable to the RMAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGDG.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.

Drawdowns

XGDG.L vs. RMAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGDG.L drawdown since its inception was -25.05%, roughly equal to the maximum RMAP.L drawdown of -24.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGDG.L and RMAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XGDG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.05%	-24.37%	-0.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.05%	-23.34%	-1.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.05%	-23.34%	-1.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.05%	-23.34%	-1.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.73%	-23.27%	-1.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.36%	-9.27%	+0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.67%	8.34%	+0.33%

Volatility

XGDG.L vs. RMAP.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers IE Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC Securities (XGDG.L) has a higher volatility of 9.05% compared to HANetf The Royal Mint Responsibly Sourced Physical Gold ETC (RMAP.L) at 8.09%. This indicates that XGDG.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

	XGDG.L	RMAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.05%	8.09%	+0.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.60%	21.09%	+2.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.38%	23.97%	+2.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.67%	21.78%	-4.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.66%	22.61%	-4.95%

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

XGDG.L has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAP.L's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

XGDG.L vs. RMAP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.94, XGDG.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, XGDG.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, XGDG.L or RMAP.L?

RMAP.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for XGDG.L.

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

XGDG.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged), while RMAP.L tracks Gold. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for XGDG.L and 0.22% for RMAP.L.