GSIB vs. PCGG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) and PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes, while PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GSIB returned 49.09% vs -6.80% for PCGG. Their 0.51 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GSIB charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PCGG.

Performance

GSIB vs. PCGG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). 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 PCGG's -7.27% return.

GSIB

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

PCGG

• 1D: 0.99%
• 1M: 0.72%
• 6M: -3.52%
• YTD: -7.27%
• 1Y: -6.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.43%

*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
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	$24.05K	$48.20K	$39.78K

GSIB vs. PCGG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	22.66%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-7.27%	1.62%	12.40%	1.34%

Correlation

The correlation between GSIB and PCGG is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.51

The correlation between GSIB and PCGG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSIB vs. PCGG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSIB	PCGG
Financial Services	99.6%	15.4%
Technology	0.1%	41.4%
Basic Materials	-	2.1%
Communication Services	-	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.3%
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	7.4%
Industrials	-	7.8%
Real Estate	-	1.3%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

GSIB vs. PCGG — 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

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 5
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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. PCGG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). 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	PCGG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	-0.52	+3.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.65	-0.62	+4.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	0.93	+0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	-0.38	+3.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.87	-0.81	+12.68

GSIB vs. PCGG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

The maximum GSIB drawdown since its inception was -17.71%, smaller than the maximum PCGG drawdown of -22.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSIB and PCGG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSIB	PCGG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.71%	-22.66%	+4.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-22.66%	+8.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-11.90%	+11.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-5.40%	+3.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.95%	10.55%	-6.60%

Volatility

GSIB vs. PCGG - Volatility Comparison

Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a higher volatility of 5.74% compared to Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) at 4.34%. This indicates that GSIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PCGG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GSIB	PCGG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.74%	4.34%	+1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.93%	13.40%	+1.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.90%	16.28%	+1.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	16.73%	+1.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.46%	16.73%	+1.73%

GSIB vs. PCGG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSIB has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than PCGG's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSIB vs. PCGG - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.55%	1.91%	1.67%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSIB and PCGG in my portfolio?

GSIB and PCGG have a correlation of 0.57, 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 PCGG?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.74%) compared to PCGG (4.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSIB dropped -17.71% vs PCGG's -22.66%.

Which ETF is better, GSIB or PCGG?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 49.09% vs -6.80% for PCGG. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 4.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSIB or PCGG?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 49.09% return vs -6.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSIB or PCGG?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

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

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

What is the main difference between GSIB and PCGG?

GSIB is categorized as Financials Equities, while PCGG is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Polen. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GSIB and 0.85% for PCGG.

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.