FLJH vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. FLJH is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, FLJH returned 45.89% vs 47.83% for GSIB. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLJH charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

FLJH vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) 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, FLJH achieves a 18.85% return, which is significantly higher than GSIB's 13.98% return.

FLJH

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 18.85%
• 6M: 15.00%
• 1Y: 45.89%
• 3Y*: 25.97%
• 5Y*: 20.54%
• 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)

FLJH vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	18.85%	25.26%	25.89%	2.04%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between FLJH and GSIB is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.51

The correlation between FLJH and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLJH vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLJH	GSIB
Industrials	26.6%	-
Technology	17.4%	-
Financial Services	15.9%	100.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	-
Communication Services	7.1%	-
Healthcare	5.9%	-
Basic Materials	4.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	-
Real Estate	3.4%	-
Utilities	1.3%	-
Energy	1.0%	-

Return for Risk

FLJH vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 86
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

FLJH vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) 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.

	FLJH	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	2.59	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	3.58	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.43	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.20	3.28	+0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.28	11.54	+4.74

FLJH vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLJH Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is comparable to the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLJH 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

FLJH vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLJH drawdown since its inception was -31.51%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLJH and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLJH	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.51%	-17.71%	-13.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.80%	-13.90%	+3.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.30%	0.00%	-1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.30%	-2.05%	-3.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.78%	3.94%	-1.16%

Volatility

FLJH vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) is 5.20%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.59%. This indicates that FLJH 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

	FLJH	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.20%	5.59%	-0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.09%	14.41%	-0.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.44%	17.63%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.61%	18.51%	+0.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.84%	18.51%	+1.33%

FLJH vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLJH has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLJH vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

FLJH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.28%, more than GSIB's 1.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	3.28%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLJH and GSIB in my portfolio?

FLJH and GSIB have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLJH or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to FLJH (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLJH dropped -31.51% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, FLJH or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 45.89% for FLJH. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLJH or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 45.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLJH or GSIB?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GSIB.

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

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between FLJH and GSIB?

FLJH is categorized as Japan Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLJH and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.46), 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.