AUMI vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AUMI (Themes Gold Miners ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AUMI is a Gold fund tracking the Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. AUMI is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, AUMI returned 48.97% vs 42.41% for GSIB. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

AUMI vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUMI achieves a -5.96% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 9.75% return.

AUMI

• 1D: -2.93%
• 1M: -3.79%
• YTD: -5.96%
• 6M: -0.21%
• 1Y: 48.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 5.66%
• YTD: 9.75%
• 6M: 16.02%
• 1Y: 42.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AUMI vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	-5.96%	164.18%	30.61%	1.99%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between AUMI and GSIB is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.29

AUMI vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AUMI	GSIB
Basic Materials	99.5%	-
Communication Services	0.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AUMI vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUMI

AUMI Risk / Return Rank: 28
AUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
AUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
AUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 29
AUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 28

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 68
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

AUMI vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB). 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.

	AUMI	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	2.47	-1.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.48	3.43	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.41	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.54	3.07	-1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.94	10.80	-6.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AUMI vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUMI and GSIB, 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

	AUMI	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.03	2.47	-1.45
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	2.35	-0.80

Drawdowns

AUMI vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUMI drawdown since its inception was -31.88%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUMI and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUMI	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.88%	-17.71%	-14.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.88%	-13.90%	-17.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.25%	-1.07%	-28.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.06%	-2.06%	-5.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.46%	3.94%	+8.52%

Volatility

AUMI vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) has a higher volatility of 14.46% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 5.26%. This indicates that AUMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GSIB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUMI	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.46%	5.26%	+9.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.54%	13.97%	+24.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.95%	17.24%	+30.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	41.57%	18.45%	+23.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	41.57%	18.45%	+23.12%

AUMI vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both AUMI and GSIB have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

AUMI vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

AUMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than GSIB's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	0.92%	0.86%	1.84%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.74%	1.91%	1.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUMI and GSIB in my portfolio?

AUMI and GSIB have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AUMI or GSIB?

AUMI has higher volatility (14.46%) compared to GSIB (5.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUMI dropped -31.88% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, AUMI or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, AUMI leads with 48.97% vs 42.41% for GSIB. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AUMI or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, AUMI has performed better with a 48.97% return vs 42.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUMI or GSIB?

AUMI and GSIB have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AUMI or GSIB?

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 0.92% for AUMI.

What is the main difference between AUMI and GSIB?

AUMI is categorized as Gold, while GSIB is Financials Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.03), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.