Comparison of the predicted RM radial profiles from our model with radio observations. (Left) Comparison of the modelled RM radial profiles with the following observational data from radio sources of a sample of various clusters: A1656 (Coma) from Bonafede et al. (2010); A2255, A119, and A514 from Govoni et al. (2010); A376, A426 (Perseus), A496, A754, A1060 (Hydra), A1314, and A2247 from Clarke et al. (2001); A2255 from Govoni et al. (2005); and A400 and A2634 from Eilek & Owen (2002). Our model with M_clust = 10¹⁵ M_⊙ seems to be in good agreement with the observations. In particular, a strong similarity is observed with observations of A1656 (Coma), probably due to its high X-ray emission symmetry. Significant deviations are observed for A1060 (Hydra) and A426 (Perseus), probably due to high AGN activity and strong gas mixing. (Centre) Comparison of our RM model with the galactic foreground corrected data of the AS0373 (Fornax) cluster from Anderson et al. (2021). The solid lines correspond to our model at ɀ = 0. The black dotted line corresponds to a fit of the form ${10}^{\alpha r/r_{200}}$ of the Fornax data, with a best-fit parameter of α = 0.118 ± 0.022. (Right) Comparison of our RM model with the observed data of the Abell 2345 cluster from Stuardi et al. (2021). The dashed lines correspond to our model at ɀ = 0.174, which is the closest redshift of our model to that of Abell 2345. Both observations are in relatively good agreement with our model up to r/r₂₀₀ ≃ 0.4. Above this limit, the discrepancies are most likely due to the dynamic state of both clusters, which are supposed to be in an ongoing-merger state.