XWEV.L vs. RMAU.L

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

XWEV.L (Xtrackers MSCI World Value ESG UCITS ETF 1C) and RMAU.L (The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities) are both exchange-traded funds - XWEV.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI World Value Low Carbon SRI Screened Select, while RMAU.L is a Commodities fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XWEV.L returned 22.60%/yr vs 26.73%/yr for RMAU.L. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XWEV.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for RMAU.L.

Performance

XWEV.L vs. RMAU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI World Value ESG UCITS ETF 1C (XWEV.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

In the year-to-date period, XWEV.L achieves a 17.47% return, which is significantly higher than RMAU.L's -6.85% return.

XWEV.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.58%
• 6M: 14.54%
• YTD: 17.47%
• 1Y: 40.36%
• 3Y*: 22.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMAU.L

• 1D: -2.05%
• 1M: -4.95%
• 6M: -13.15%
• YTD: -6.85%
• 1Y: 19.08%
• 3Y*: 26.73%
• 5Y*: 16.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XWEV.L Xtrackers MSCI World Value ESG UCITS ETF 1C	17.47%	38.58%	6.98%	7.84%
RMAU.L The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities	-6.85%	64.59%	25.96%	7.11%

Correlation

The correlation between XWEV.L and RMAU.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.30

The correlation between XWEV.L and RMAU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (3 years) to 0.45 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

XWEV.L

XWEV.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
XWEV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
XWEV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
XWEV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
XWEV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
XWEV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 88

RMAU.L

RMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 23
RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
RMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
RMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 25
RMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
RMAU.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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI World Value ESG UCITS ETF 1C (XWEV.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.

	XWEV.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.62	0.72	+1.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	1.08	+2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.15	+0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.87	0.77	+3.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.68	1.92	+12.75

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

The current XWEV.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is higher than the RMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XWEV.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

XWEV.L vs. RMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XWEV.L drawdown since its inception was -14.23%, smaller than the maximum RMAU.L drawdown of -24.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XWEV.L and RMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XWEV.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.23%	-24.69%	+10.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-24.69%	+14.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.23%	-24.69%	+10.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.52%	-24.50%	+22.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.33%	-7.11%	+4.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.74%	9.91%	-7.17%

Volatility

XWEV.L vs. RMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI World Value ESG UCITS ETF 1C (XWEV.L) is 4.46%, while The Royal Mint Physical Gold ETC Securities (RMAU.L) has a volatility of 7.99%. This indicates that XWEV.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RMAU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XWEV.L	RMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	7.99%	-3.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.80%	23.00%	-10.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.39%	26.42%	-11.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.09%	17.85%	-2.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.09%	18.01%	-2.92%

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

XWEV.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than RMAU.L's 0.22% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XWEV.L vs. RMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

XWEV.L and RMAU.L have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XWEV.L or RMAU.L?

On fees, RMAU.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, XWEV.L or RMAU.L?

RMAU.L is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XWEV.L.

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

XWEV.L is categorized as Global Equities, while RMAU.L is Commodities. XWEV.L tracks MSCI World Value Low Carbon SRI Screened Select, while RMAU.L tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XWEV.L and 0.22% for RMAU.L.