XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

XGDU.L (Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities) and RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both exchange-traded funds - XGDU.L is a Gold fund tracking the Gold, while RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XGDU.L returned 17.32%/yr vs 17.17%/yr for RMAU.L. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XGDU.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAU.L.

Performance

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities (XGDU.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with XGDU.L having a -6.05% return and RMAU.L slightly lower at -6.12%.

XGDU.L

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: -7.01%
• 6M: -12.45%
• YTD: -6.05%
• 1Y: 21.29%
• 3Y*: 27.23%
• 5Y*: 17.32%
• 10Y*: —

RMAU.L

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: -7.02%
• 6M: -12.45%
• YTD: -6.12%
• 1Y: 21.14%
• 3Y*: 27.06%
• 5Y*: 17.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
XGDU.L Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities	-6.05%	64.73%	26.19%	13.45%	-0.09%	-4.08%	10.70%
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	-6.12%	64.59%	25.96%	13.29%	-0.19%	-4.17%	11.90%

Correlation

The correlation between XGDU.L and RMAU.L is 0.99 - 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	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2020	0.98

The correlation between XGDU.L and RMAU.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XGDU.L

XGDU.L Risk / Return Rank: 24
XGDU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
XGDU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
XGDU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 27
XGDU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
XGDU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22

RMAU.L

RMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 24
RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
RMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
RMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 27
RMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
RMAU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities (XGDU.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.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.

	XGDU.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.80	0.80	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.18	1.17	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.16	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	0.85	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.11	2.08	+0.03

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XGDU.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.80, which is comparable to the RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGDU.L and RMAU.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

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGDU.L drawdown since its inception was -24.55%, roughly equal to the maximum RMAU.L drawdown of -24.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGDU.L and RMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XGDU.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.55%	-24.69%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.55%	-24.69%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.55%	-24.69%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.55%	-24.69%	+0.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.78%	-23.91%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.45%	-7.13%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.06%	10.13%	-0.07%

Volatility

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers IE Physical Gold ETC Securities (XGDU.L) and The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) have volatilities of 7.58% and 7.54%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	XGDU.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.58%	7.54%	+0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.13%	23.08%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.47%	26.43%	+0.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.73%	17.87%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.46%	18.02%	-0.56%

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

XGDU.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than RMAU.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

XGDU.L vs. RMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.99, XGDU.L and RMAU.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, XGDU.L or RMAU.L?

On fees, XGDU.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

XGDU.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for RMAU.L.

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

XGDU.L is categorized as Gold, while RMAU.L is Commodities. XGDU.L tracks Gold, while RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for XGDU.L and 0.22% for RMAU.L.