GSIB vs. KBWP

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and KBWP (Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. GSIB is actively managed, while KBWP is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 49.09% vs 18.27% for KBWP. Their 0.25 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

GSIB vs. KBWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF (KBWP). 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 KBWP's 7.40% return.

GSIB

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

KBWP

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: 0.93%
• 6M: 10.54%
• YTD: 7.40%
• 1Y: 18.27%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: 14.28%
• 10Y*: 12.93%
• ALL TIME*: 13.72%

*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)
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	$2.37M	$1.31M	$753.15K
KBWP Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF	$2.91M	$3.13M	$2.04M

GSIB vs. KBWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	22.66%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
KBWP Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF	7.40%	11.49%	30.45%	1.02%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and KBWP is 0.03, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.25

Over the past year, the correlation between GSIB and KBWP has dropped to 0.03 - well below their long-term average of 0.25, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

GSIB vs. KBWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	KBWP
Financial Services	99.6%	100.0%
Technology	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. KBWP — 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

KBWP

KBWP Risk / Return Rank: 41
KBWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
KBWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
KBWP Omega Ratio Rank: 38
KBWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
KBWP Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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. KBWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF (KBWP). 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	KBWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	0.98	+1.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.65	1.46	+2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.18	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	1.83	+1.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.87	4.15	+7.72

GSIB vs. KBWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is higher than the KBWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and KBWP, 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. KBWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum KBWP drawdown of -39.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and KBWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	KBWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-39.76%	+22.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-9.56%	-4.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.29%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-3.41%	+3.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-4.35%	+2.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.95%	4.20%	-0.25%

Volatility

GSIB vs. KBWP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) is 5.74%, while Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF (KBWP) has a volatility of 7.95%. This indicates that GSIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KBWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	KBWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.74%	7.95%	-2.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.93%	14.30%	+0.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.90%	17.84%	+0.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	18.72%	-0.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.46%	20.85%	-2.39%

GSIB vs. KBWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GSIB and KBWP have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

GSIB vs. KBWP - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, less than KBWP's 1.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.55%	1.91%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KBWP Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF	1.82%	1.58%	1.64%	1.68%	1.99%	3.02%	1.93%	1.99%	2.11%	1.90%	2.14%	1.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and KBWP in my portfolio?

GSIB and KBWP have a correlation of 0.03, 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 KBWP?

KBWP has higher volatility (7.95%) compared to GSIB (5.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs KBWP's -39.76%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or KBWP?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 49.09% vs 18.27% for KBWP. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. 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 KBWP?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 49.09% return vs 18.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or KBWP?

GSIB and KBWP have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

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

KBWP has the higher dividend yield at 1.82%, compared with 1.55% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and KBWP?

They also come from different issuers: Themes and Invesco.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 0.98), 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.