GABF vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GABF (Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GABF returned -3.20% vs 42.41% for GSIB. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GABF charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

GABF vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF) 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, GABF achieves a -7.03% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 9.75% return.

GABF

• 1D: -1.89%
• 1M: -3.11%
• YTD: -7.03%
• 6M: -6.24%
• 1Y: -3.20%
• 3Y*: 20.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 5.66%
• YTD: 9.75%
• 6M: 16.02%
• 1Y: 42.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GABF vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GABF Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF	-7.03%	3.60%	44.38%	2.01%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between GABF and GSIB is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.66

The correlation between GABF and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

GABF vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GABF	GSIB
Financial Services	84.6%	100.0%
Real Estate	6.0%	-
Technology	4.9%	-
Industrials	4.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GABF vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

GABF

GABF Risk / Return Rank: 7
GABF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
GABF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
GABF Omega Ratio Rank: 6
GABF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
GABF Martin Ratio Rank: 7

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 68
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

GABF vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF) 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.

	GABF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.19	2.47	-2.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.13	3.43	-3.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.41	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	3.07	-3.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	10.80	-11.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GABF vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GABF Sharpe Ratio is -0.19, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GABF 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GABF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.19	2.47	-2.66
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	2.35	-1.49

Drawdowns

GABF vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GABF drawdown since its inception was -20.86%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GABF and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	GABF	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.86%	-17.71%	-3.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.16%	-13.90%	-3.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.60%	-1.07%	-10.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.86%	-2.06%	-2.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.27%	3.94%	+3.33%

Volatility

GABF vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF) is 4.28%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that GABF 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

	GABF	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	5.26%	-0.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.14%	13.97%	-0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.37%	17.24%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.54%	18.45%	+2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.54%	18.45%	+2.09%

GABF vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

GABF has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

GABF vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

GABF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, more than GSIB's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
GABF Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF	2.11%	1.96%	4.19%	4.95%	1.31%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.74%	1.91%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GABF and GSIB in my portfolio?

GABF and GSIB have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GABF or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to GABF (4.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GABF dropped -20.86% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, GABF or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.41% vs -3.20% for GABF. On fees, GABF is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GABF has been the lower-risk option at 4.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GABF or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.41% return vs -3.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GABF or GSIB?

GABF is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GSIB.

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

GABF has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 1.74% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GABF and GSIB?

They also come from different issuers: Gabelli and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GABF and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs -0.19), 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.