GSIB vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while EFAS is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. GSIB is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 47.83% vs 29.12% for EFAS. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

GSIB vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSIB achieves a 13.98% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 15.45% return.

GSIB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 6.99%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 6M: 16.88%
• 1Y: 47.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 15.45%
• 6M: 18.87%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: 25.18%
• 5Y*: 12.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

GSIB vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	15.45%	46.83%	3.07%	2.07%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and EFAS is 0.62, 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	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.61

The correlation between GSIB and EFAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSIB vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	EFAS
Financial Services	100.0%	30.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.1%
Energy	-	13.7%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	9.9%
Real Estate	-	11.3%
Technology	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	14.4%

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 89
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	GSIB	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	2.75	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	3.86	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.48	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	5.64	-2.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.54	14.75	-3.21

GSIB vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is comparable to the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and EFAS, 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

GSIB vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-44.38%	+26.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-5.30%	-8.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.84%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.87%	+0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-7.06%	+5.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	2.02%	+1.92%

Volatility

GSIB vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a higher volatility of 5.59% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 3.35%. This indicates that GSIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	3.35%	+2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.41%	8.58%	+5.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	10.87%	+6.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	15.62%	+2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.51%	18.32%	+0.19%

GSIB vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than EFAS's 4.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.62%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
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%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and EFAS in my portfolio?

GSIB and EFAS have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GSIB or EFAS?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to EFAS (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or EFAS?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 29.12% for EFAS. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or EFAS?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 29.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or EFAS?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

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

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and EFAS?

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while EFAS is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 2.59), 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.