GSIB vs. IXG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and IXG (iShares Global Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. GSIB is actively managed, while IXG is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 42.41% vs 12.70% for IXG. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for IXG.

Performance

GSIB vs. IXG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSIB achieves a 9.75% return, which is significantly higher than IXG's -0.23% return.

GSIB

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 5.66%
• YTD: 9.75%
• 6M: 16.02%
• 1Y: 42.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IXG

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 3.74%
• 1Y: 12.70%
• 3Y*: 22.63%
• 5Y*: 10.96%
• 10Y*: 11.83%

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

GSIB vs. IXG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	-0.23%	28.54%	25.69%	2.15%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and IXG is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.85

The correlation between GSIB and IXG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSIB vs. IXG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	IXG
Financial Services	100.0%	97.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. IXG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 68
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

IXG

IXG Risk / Return Rank: 25
IXG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
IXG Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
IXG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
IXG Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IXG Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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. IXG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG). 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.

	GSIB	IXG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	0.93	+1.54
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.43	1.40	+2.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.16	+0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	1.13	+1.94
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.80	3.97	+6.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GSIB vs. IXG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is higher than the IXG Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and IXG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GSIB	IXG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47	0.93	+1.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.64	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.35	0.24	+2.11

Drawdowns

GSIB vs. IXG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum IXG drawdown of -78.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and IXG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	IXG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-78.42%	+60.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-11.33%	-2.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.54%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.20%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.07%	-2.88%	+1.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.06%	-19.75%	+17.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	3.21%	+0.73%

Volatility

GSIB vs. IXG - Volatility Comparison

Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a higher volatility of 5.26% compared to iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) at 3.70%. This indicates that GSIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IXG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	IXG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.26%	3.70%	+1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.97%	10.90%	+3.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.24%	13.67%	+3.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.45%	17.34%	+1.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.45%	20.12%	-1.67%

GSIB vs. IXG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IXG's 0.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. IXG - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, less than IXG's 2.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.74%	1.91%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	2.05%	2.04%	2.64%	2.62%	3.71%	1.69%	2.13%	2.87%	3.14%	2.12%	2.21%	2.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and IXG in my portfolio?

GSIB and IXG have a correlation of 0.89, 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 IXG?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to IXG (3.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs IXG's -78.42%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or IXG?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.41% vs 12.70% for IXG. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IXG has been the lower-risk option at 3.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or IXG?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.41% return vs 12.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or IXG?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for IXG.

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

IXG has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 1.74% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and IXG?

They also come from different issuers: Themes and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.46% for IXG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 0.93), 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.