GDXU vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 10, 2026

GDXU (MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDXU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. GDXU is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, GDXU returned 28.46% vs 41.35% for GSIB. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GDXU charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

GDXU vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) 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, GDXU achieves a -59.48% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 10.48% return.

GDXU

• 1D: -4.74%
• 1M: -51.61%
• YTD: -59.48%
• 6M: -53.72%
• 1Y: 28.46%
• 3Y*: 32.83%
• 5Y*: -16.79%
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 4.13%
• YTD: 10.48%
• 6M: 15.45%
• 1Y: 41.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GDXU vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GDXU MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	-59.48%	796.47%	-18.60%	-0.33%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	10.48%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXU and GSIB is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.31

GDXU vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXU	GSIB
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GDXU vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDXU

GDXU Risk / Return Rank: 18
GDXU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
GDXU Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GDXU Omega Ratio Rank: 28
GDXU Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
GDXU Martin Ratio Rank: 13

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 76
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

GDXU vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) 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.

	GDXU	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.20	2.39	-2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	3.33	-2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.40	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.35	2.99	-2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.76	10.53	-9.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GDXU vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXU Sharpe Ratio is 0.20, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXU 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

	GDXU	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20	2.39	-2.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.15	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.14	2.33	-2.47

Drawdowns

GDXU vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXU drawdown since its inception was -94.39%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXU and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXU	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.39%	-17.71%	-76.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-81.20%	-13.90%	-67.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-81.20%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.65%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-81.20%	-1.05%	-80.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.74%	-2.05%	-67.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	37.55%	3.94%	+33.61%

Volatility

GDXU vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) has a higher volatility of 49.14% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 4.58%. This indicates that GDXU'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

	GDXU	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	49.14%	4.58%	+44.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	122.10%	14.12%	+107.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	140.07%	17.35%	+122.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	111.51%	18.44%	+93.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	110.46%	18.44%	+92.02%

GDXU vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDXU has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDXU vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

GDXU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GDXU MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.73%	1.91%	1.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXU and GSIB in my portfolio?

GDXU and GSIB have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDXU or GSIB?

GDXU has higher volatility (49.14%) compared to GSIB (4.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXU dropped -94.39% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, GDXU or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 41.35% vs 28.46% for GDXU. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 4.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXU or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 41.35% return vs 28.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXU or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GDXU.

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.73%, compared with 0.00% for GDXU.

What is the main difference between GDXU and GSIB?

GDXU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GDXU and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 0.20), 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.