BCFN vs. GSIB
BCFN (Baron Financials ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. BCFN is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BCFN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.
Performance
BCFN vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCFN achieves a -8.91% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 22.66% return.
BCFN
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 1.82%
- 6M
- -4.65%
- YTD
- -8.91%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
GSIB
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 6.55%
- 6M
- 18.14%
- YTD
- 22.66%
- 1Y
- 49.09%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 45.58%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $34.29K | $30.00K | $73.20K | |
| $2.37M | $1.31M | $753.15K |
BCFN vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | -8.91% | -0.45% |
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF | 22.66% | 2.54% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCFN and GSIB is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2025 | 0.48 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BCFN vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank
BCFN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
GSIB
BCFN vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Financials ETF (BCFN) 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.
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.
| BCFN | GSIB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.43 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.38 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 11.87 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCFN vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCFN drawdown since its inception was -20.95%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCFN and GSIB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCFN | GSIB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.95% | -17.71% | -3.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -13.90% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.17% | -0.11% | -11.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.62% | -1.99% | -10.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.95% | — |
Volatility
BCFN vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCFN | GSIB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.74% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 14.93% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.88% | 17.90% | +0.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.88% | 18.46% | +0.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.88% | 18.46% | +0.42% |
BCFN vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCFN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCFN vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison
BCFN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
BCFN Baron Financials ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF | 1.55% | 1.91% | 1.67% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCFN and GSIB have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCFN.
GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.00% for BCFN.
They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCFN and 0.35% for GSIB.
Find the right allocation for BCFN and GSIB
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer