GSIB vs. NLR

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. GSIB is actively managed, while NLR is passively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 47.83% vs 19.00% for NLR. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.

Performance

GSIB vs. NLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). 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 higher than NLR's -1.81% return.

GSIB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 8.41%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 6M: 16.88%
• 1Y: 47.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NLR

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -9.40%
• YTD: -1.81%
• 6M: -3.70%
• 1Y: 19.00%
• 3Y*: 29.88%
• 5Y*: 19.78%
• 10Y*: 12.80%

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

GSIB vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-1.81%	56.50%	14.26%	-0.86%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and NLR is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.44

GSIB vs. NLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	NLR
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	45.3%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	15.1%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	38.1%

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. NLR — 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

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 18
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). 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	NLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	0.44	+2.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	0.90	+2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.10	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	0.63	+2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.54	1.41	+10.13

GSIB vs. NLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is higher than the NLR Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSIB and NLR, 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. NLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and NLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	NLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-65.05%	+47.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-29.72%	+15.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.48%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-25.81%	+25.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-35.70%	+33.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	13.33%	-9.39%

Volatility

GSIB vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) is 5.59%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a volatility of 13.73%. This indicates that GSIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	NLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	13.73%	-8.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.41%	33.75%	-19.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	42.85%	-25.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	29.56%	-11.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.51%	24.22%	-5.71%

GSIB vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison

GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than NLR's 2.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	2.60%	2.55%	0.76%	4.54%	2.02%	1.99%	2.23%	2.21%	3.91%	4.86%	3.62%	3.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and NLR in my portfolio?

GSIB and NLR have a correlation of 0.48, 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 NLR?

NLR has higher volatility (13.73%) compared to GSIB (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs NLR's -65.05%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or NLR?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 19.00% for NLR. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% 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 NLR?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 19.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or NLR?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between GSIB and NLR?

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while NLR is Uranium. They also come from different issuers: Themes and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.56% for NLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 0.44), 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.