GSIB vs. FLKR

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and FLKR (Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while FLKR is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE South Korea RIC Capped Index. GSIB is actively managed, while FLKR is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 45.35% vs 185.66% for FLKR. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLKR.

Performance

GSIB vs. FLKR - 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 South Korea ETF (FLKR). 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 FLKR's 98.10% return.

GSIB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 6.83%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 6M: 16.88%
• 1Y: 45.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLKR

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: 3.81%
• YTD: 98.10%
• 6M: 113.45%
• 1Y: 185.66%
• 3Y*: 45.52%
• 5Y*: 17.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

GSIB vs. FLKR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	98.10%	91.91%	-18.84%	4.37%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and FLKR is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.45

GSIB vs. FLKR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	FLKR
Financial Services	100.0%	7.6%
Basic Materials	-	2.6%
Communication Services	-	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.5%
Energy	-	0.4%
Healthcare	-	2.5%
Industrials	-	12.8%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	64.3%
Utilities	-	0.3%

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. FLKR — 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

FLKR

FLKR Risk / Return Rank: 95
FLKR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLKR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
FLKR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLKR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FLKR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. FLKR - 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 South Korea ETF (FLKR). 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	FLKR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	4.08	-1.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	3.94	-0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.58	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	8.11	-4.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.54	28.21	-16.67

GSIB vs. FLKR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is lower than the FLKR Sharpe Ratio of 4.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and FLKR, 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. FLKR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum FLKR drawdown of -50.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and FLKR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	FLKR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-50.06%	+32.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-23.03%	+9.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-49.51%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-9.25%	+9.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-22.03%	+19.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	6.61%	-2.67%

Volatility

GSIB vs. FLKR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) is 5.59%, while Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) has a volatility of 25.85%. This indicates that GSIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLKR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	FLKR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	25.85%	-20.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.41%	42.11%	-27.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	45.82%	-28.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	29.58%	-11.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.51%	28.37%	-9.86%

GSIB vs. FLKR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GSIB vs. FLKR - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than FLKR's 1.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	1.95%	3.87%	7.08%	2.28%	3.13%	2.12%	0.99%	2.09%	1.86%	1.02%
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 FLKR in my portfolio?

GSIB and FLKR have a correlation of 0.46, 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 FLKR?

FLKR has higher volatility (25.85%) compared to GSIB (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs FLKR's -50.06%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or FLKR?

On 1-year performance, FLKR leads with 185.66% vs 45.35% for GSIB. On fees, FLKR is cheaper at 0.09% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or FLKR?

Over the 1-year period, FLKR has performed better with a 185.66% return vs 45.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or FLKR?

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

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

FLKR has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and FLKR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLKR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.08 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.