FLTR vs. GSIB

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

FLTR (VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLTR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. FLTR is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, FLTR returned 5.04% vs 46.76% for GSIB. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. FLTR charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

FLTR vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) 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, FLTR achieves a 2.70% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 22.66% return.

FLTR

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.31%
• 6M: 2.30%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 1Y: 5.04%
• 3Y*: 5.95%
• 5Y*: 4.63%
• 10Y*: 3.52%
• ALL TIME*: 2.56%

GSIB

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 7.17%
• 6M: 18.14%
• YTD: 22.66%
• 1Y: 46.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 45.58%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	$35.76M	$33.35M	$28.52M
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	$2.37M	$1.31M	$753.15K

FLTR vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	2.70%	5.22%	7.38%	0.49%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	22.66%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between FLTR and GSIB is 0.18, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.15

Return for Risk

FLTR vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 90
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FLTR vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) 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.

	FLTR	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	6.40	2.63	+3.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	11.91	3.65	+8.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.96	1.43	+1.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	16.15	3.38	+12.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	95.31	11.87	+83.43

FLTR vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLTR Sharpe Ratio is 6.40, which is higher than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLTR 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

FLTR vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLTR drawdown since its inception was -17.84%, roughly equal to the maximum GSIB drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLTR and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLTR	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.84%	-17.71%	-0.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.31%	-13.90%	+13.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.93%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-3.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-17.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.11%	+0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.67%	-1.99%	+1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.05%	3.95%	-3.90%

Volatility

FLTR vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) is 0.17%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.74%. This indicates that FLTR 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

	FLTR	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.17%	5.74%	-5.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.65%	14.93%	-14.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80%	17.90%	-17.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.13%	18.46%	-16.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.00%	18.46%	-13.46%

FLTR vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLTR has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLTR vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

FLTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.63%, more than GSIB's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	4.63%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.55%	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 FLTR and GSIB in my portfolio?

FLTR and GSIB have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLTR or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.74%) compared to FLTR (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLTR dropped -17.84% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, FLTR or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 46.76% vs 5.04% for FLTR. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLTR or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 46.76% return vs 5.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLTR or GSIB?

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GSIB.

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

FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.63%, compared with 1.55% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between FLTR and GSIB?

FLTR is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for FLTR and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.40 vs 2.63), 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.