HWAY vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HWAY (Themes US Infrastructure ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HWAY is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the Solactive United States Infrastructure Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. HWAY is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, HWAY returned 42.60% vs 42.41% for GSIB. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HWAY charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

HWAY vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HWAY achieves a 22.83% return, which is significantly higher than GSIB's 9.75% return.

HWAY

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 3.11%
• YTD: 22.83%
• 6M: 21.62%
• 1Y: 42.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

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

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

HWAY vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
HWAY Themes US Infrastructure ETF	22.83%	19.99%	3.39%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	12.76%

Correlation

The correlation between HWAY and GSIB is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2024	0.63

The correlation between HWAY and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

HWAY vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HWAY	GSIB
Industrials	79.7%	-
Basic Materials	18.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.2%	-
Technology	0.2%	-
Energy	0.2%	-
Utilities	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

HWAY vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

HWAY

HWAY Risk / Return Rank: 66
HWAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
HWAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
HWAY Omega Ratio Rank: 61
HWAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
HWAY Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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

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.

HWAY vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Infrastructure ETF (HWAY) and Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB). 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.

	HWAY	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	2.47	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.43	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.41	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	3.07	+0.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.51	10.80	+1.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HWAY vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HWAY Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is comparable to the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HWAY and GSIB, 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

	HWAY	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	2.47	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.25	2.35	-1.11

Drawdowns

HWAY vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HWAY drawdown since its inception was -25.96%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HWAY and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	HWAY	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.96%	-17.71%	-8.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.63%	-13.90%	+1.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.26%	-1.07%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.38%	-2.06%	-3.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.41%	3.94%	-0.53%

Volatility

HWAY vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

Themes US Infrastructure ETF (HWAY) has a higher volatility of 7.31% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 5.26%. This indicates that HWAY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GSIB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HWAY	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.31%	5.26%	+2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.31%	13.97%	+2.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.75%	17.24%	+2.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.42%	18.45%	+3.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.42%	18.45%	+3.97%

HWAY vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

HWAY has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

HWAY vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

HWAY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than GSIB's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.74%	1.91%	1.67%
HWAY Themes US Infrastructure ETF	1.05%	1.29%	0.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HWAY and GSIB in my portfolio?

HWAY and GSIB have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HWAY or GSIB?

HWAY has higher volatility (7.31%) compared to GSIB (5.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HWAY dropped -25.96% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, HWAY or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, HWAY leads with 42.60% vs 42.41% for GSIB. On fees, HWAY is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HWAY or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, HWAY has performed better with a 42.60% return vs 42.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HWAY or GSIB?

HWAY is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GSIB.

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.05% for HWAY.

What is the main difference between HWAY and GSIB?

HWAY is categorized as Industrials Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for HWAY and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 2.17), 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.