EWY vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EWY (iShares MSCI South Korea ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWY is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Korea Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. EWY is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, EWY returned 203.95% vs 47.83% for GSIB. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EWY charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

EWY vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) 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, EWY achieves a 103.10% return, which is significantly higher than GSIB's 13.98% return.

EWY

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 103.10%
• 6M: 117.85%
• 1Y: 203.95%
• 3Y*: 46.46%
• 5Y*: 18.80%
• 10Y*: 16.84%

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)

EWY vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EWY iShares MSCI South Korea ETF	103.10%	95.33%	-20.48%	4.01%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between EWY and GSIB 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.45

EWY vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWY	GSIB
Technology	52.4%	-
Industrials	20.4%	-
Financial Services	9.6%	100.0%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	-
Healthcare	3.5%	-
Communication Services	2.9%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	-
Energy	1.4%	-
Utilities	0.4%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EWY vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWY

EWY Risk / Return Rank: 95
EWY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EWY Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
EWY Omega Ratio Rank: 94
EWY Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
EWY Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

EWY vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) 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.

	EWY	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.29	2.59	+1.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.08	3.58	+0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.43	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.65	3.28	+5.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	30.24	11.54	+18.70

EWY vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWY Sharpe Ratio is 4.29, which is higher than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWY 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

EWY vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWY drawdown since its inception was -74.14%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWY and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWY	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.14%	-17.71%	-56.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.08%	-13.90%	-9.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.88%	0.00%	-8.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.11%	-2.05%	-18.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.59%	3.94%	+2.65%

Volatility

EWY vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) has a higher volatility of 25.64% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 5.59%. This indicates that EWY'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

	EWY	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.64%	5.59%	+20.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.65%	14.41%	+28.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.51%	17.63%	+28.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.15%	18.51%	+11.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.06%	18.51%	+9.55%

EWY vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWY has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWY vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

EWY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, less than GSIB's 1.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWY iShares MSCI South Korea ETF	1.03%	2.10%	2.55%	2.52%	1.23%	2.16%	0.73%	2.10%	1.34%	2.90%	1.21%	2.42%
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%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EWY and GSIB in my portfolio?

EWY and GSIB 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 is riskier, EWY or GSIB?

EWY has higher volatility (25.64%) compared to GSIB (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWY dropped -74.14% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, EWY or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, EWY leads with 203.95% vs 47.83% for GSIB. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWY or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, EWY has performed better with a 203.95% return vs 47.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWY or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EWY.

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.67%, compared with 1.03% for EWY.

What is the main difference between EWY and GSIB?

EWY is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EWY and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.29 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.