GSIB vs. FNGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. GSIB is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 49.09% vs 15.45% for FNGS. Their 0.40 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

GSIB vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSIB achieves a 22.66% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 9.02% return.

GSIB

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 6.55%
• 6M: 18.14%
• YTD: 22.66%
• 1Y: 49.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 45.58%

FNGS

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 28.64%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 30.45%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$1.57M	$1.92M	$2.40M
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	$2.37M	$1.31M	$753.15K

GSIB vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	22.66%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	9.02%	18.64%	51.99%	2.03%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and FNGS is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.40

GSIB vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	FNGS
Financial Services	99.6%	10.0%
Technology	0.1%	59.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 90
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 91
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 85

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GSIB vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	0.52	+2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.65	0.86	+2.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.10	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	0.51	+2.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.87	1.37	+10.51

GSIB vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and FNGS, 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. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-48.98%	+31.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-22.93%	+9.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.77%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-7.74%	+7.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-10.80%	+8.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.95%	8.61%	-4.66%

Volatility

GSIB vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) have volatilities of 5.74% and 5.87%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.74%	5.87%	-0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.93%	18.36%	-3.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.90%	22.86%	-4.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	30.29%	-11.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.46%	31.07%	-12.61%

GSIB vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.55%	1.91%	1.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and FNGS in my portfolio?

GSIB and FNGS 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 FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (5.87%) compared to GSIB (5.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or FNGS?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 49.09% vs 15.45% for FNGS. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or FNGS?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 49.09% return vs 15.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or FNGS?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between GSIB and FNGS?

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Themes and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 0.52), 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.