EFAS vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EFAS is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. EFAS is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, EFAS returned 29.12% vs 47.83% for GSIB. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EFAS charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

EFAS vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) 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, EFAS achieves a 15.45% return, which is significantly higher than GSIB's 13.98% return.

EFAS

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 15.45%
• 6M: 18.87%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: 25.18%
• 5Y*: 12.41%
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 6.99%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 6M: 16.88%
• 1Y: 47.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFAS vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	15.45%	46.83%	3.07%	2.07%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAS and GSIB is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.61

The correlation between EFAS and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFAS vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFAS	GSIB
Financial Services	30.1%	100.0%
Utilities	14.4%	-
Energy	13.7%	-
Real Estate	11.3%	-
Industrials	9.9%	-
Communication Services	8.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	8.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	-
Healthcare	0.1%	-
Technology	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

EFAS vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 89
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 81
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

EFAS vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) 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.

	EFAS	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.75	2.59	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	3.58	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.43	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.64	3.28	+2.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.75	11.54	+3.21

EFAS vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAS Sharpe Ratio is 2.75, which is comparable to the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAS 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.

Drawdowns

EFAS vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAS drawdown since its inception was -44.38%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAS and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAS	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.38%	-17.71%	-26.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-13.90%	+8.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.87%	0.00%	-0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.06%	-2.05%	-5.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.02%	3.94%	-1.92%

Volatility

EFAS vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) is 3.35%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.59%. This indicates that EFAS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSIB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFAS	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.35%	5.59%	-2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.58%	14.41%	-5.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.87%	17.63%	-6.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.62%	18.51%	-2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.32%	18.51%	-0.19%

EFAS vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAS has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAS vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

EFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.62%, more than GSIB's 1.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.62%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.67%	1.91%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFAS and GSIB in my portfolio?

EFAS and GSIB have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFAS or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to EFAS (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAS dropped -44.38% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, EFAS or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 29.12% for EFAS. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFAS or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 29.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAS or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

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

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between EFAS and GSIB?

EFAS is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for EFAS and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 2.59), 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.