PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GSIB vs. COPJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GSIB vs. COPJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSIB achieves a 13.98% return, which is significantly higher than COPJ's 8.25% return.


GSIB

1D
1.92%
1M
8.41%
YTD
13.98%
6M
16.88%
1Y
47.83%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

COPJ

1D
4.06%
1M
-7.22%
YTD
8.25%
6M
18.98%
1Y
100.49%
3Y*
41.69%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GSIB vs. COPJ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GSIB
Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF
13.98%61.67%32.86%1.75%
COPJ
Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF
8.25%140.63%11.07%4.60%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and COPJ is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.49

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023

0.49

GSIB vs. COPJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GSIB
COPJ

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

100.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

3.6%

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

GSIB
100.0%
COPJ

-

Basic Materials

GSIB

-

COPJ
100.0%

Communication Services

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Consumer Cyclical

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Consumer Defensive

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Energy

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Healthcare

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Industrials

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Real Estate

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Technology

GSIB

-

COPJ
3.6%

Utilities

GSIB

-

COPJ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GSIB vs. COPJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSIB
GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank

COPJ
COPJ Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
COPJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COPJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
COPJ Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
COPJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
COPJ Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GSIB vs. COPJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ). 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.


GSIBCOPJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.37

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.28

3.21

+0.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.54

8.96

+2.58

GSIB vs. COPJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is comparable to the COPJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and COPJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GSIB vs. COPJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum COPJ drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and COPJ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GSIBCOPJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.71%

-32.28%

+14.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.90%

-32.28%

+18.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-32.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-17.26%

+17.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.05%

-11.97%

+9.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.94%

11.53%

-7.59%

Volatility

GSIB vs. COPJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) is 5.59%, while Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ) has a volatility of 19.44%. This indicates that GSIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COPJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GSIBCOPJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.59%

19.44%

-13.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.41%

37.98%

-23.57%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.63%

44.42%

-26.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.51%

35.48%

-16.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.51%

35.48%

-16.97%

GSIB vs. COPJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than COPJ's 0.78% expense ratio.


Dividends

GSIB vs. COPJ - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than COPJ's 10.69% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
COPJ
Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF
10.69%11.57%11.64%2.48%
GSIB
Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF
1.67%1.91%1.67%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GSIB and COPJ have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

COPJ has higher volatility (19.44%) compared to GSIB (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs COPJ's -32.28%.

On 1-year performance, COPJ leads with 100.49% 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.

Over the 1-year period, COPJ has performed better with a 100.49% return vs 47.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for COPJ.

COPJ has the higher dividend yield at 10.69%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while COPJ is Copper. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.78% for COPJ.

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.33), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GSIB and COPJ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer