GSIB vs. FLJH

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. GSIB is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 47.83% vs 45.89% for FLJH. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

GSIB vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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 FLJH's 18.85% return.

GSIB

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

FLJH

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 18.85%
• 6M: 15.00%
• 1Y: 45.89%
• 3Y*: 25.97%
• 5Y*: 20.54%
• 10Y*: —

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

GSIB vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	18.85%	25.26%	25.89%	2.04%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and FLJH is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.51

The correlation between GSIB and FLJH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSIB vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	FLJH
Financial Services	100.0%	15.9%
Basic Materials	-	4.3%
Communication Services	-	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.2%
Energy	-	1.0%
Healthcare	-	5.9%
Industrials	-	26.6%
Real Estate	-	3.4%
Technology	-	17.4%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. FLJH — 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

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 86
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	2.46	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	3.35	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.45	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	4.20	-0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.54	16.28	-4.74

GSIB vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is comparable to the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and FLJH, 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. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-31.51%	+13.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-10.80%	-3.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.30%	+1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-5.30%	+3.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	2.78%	+1.16%

Volatility

GSIB vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a higher volatility of 5.59% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 5.20%. This indicates that GSIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	5.20%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.41%	14.09%	+0.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	18.44%	-0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	18.61%	-0.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.51%	19.84%	-1.33%

GSIB vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than FLJH's 3.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	3.28%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and FLJH in my portfolio?

GSIB and FLJH have a correlation of 0.58, 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 FLJH?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to FLJH (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or FLJH?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 45.89% for FLJH. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or FLJH?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 45.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GSIB.

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

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and FLJH?

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.46), 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.