IAT vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IAT (iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. IAT is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, IAT returned 22.99% vs 42.41% for GSIB. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IAT charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

IAT vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) 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, IAT achieves a 2.80% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 9.75% return.

IAT

• 1D: -1.71%
• 1M: -1.74%
• YTD: 2.80%
• 6M: 7.09%
• 1Y: 22.99%
• 3Y*: 22.20%
• 5Y*: 1.35%
• 10Y*: 7.95%

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)

IAT vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IAT iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF	2.80%	13.05%	24.36%	-0.57%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between IAT and GSIB is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.64

The correlation between IAT and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

IAT vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

IAT vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAT

IAT Risk / Return Rank: 27
IAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
IAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
IAT Omega Ratio Rank: 29
IAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
IAT Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

IAT vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) 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.

	IAT	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	2.47	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.52	3.43	-1.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.41	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.32	3.07	-1.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.38	10.80	-7.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IAT vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAT 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

	IAT	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.06	2.47	-1.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.10	2.35	-2.26

Drawdowns

IAT vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAT drawdown since its inception was -77.22%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAT and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAT	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-77.22%	-17.71%	-59.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.49%	-13.90%	-3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-55.55%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.75%	-1.07%	-8.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.97%	-2.06%	-24.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.81%	3.94%	+2.87%

Volatility

IAT vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) has a higher volatility of 6.12% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 5.26%. This indicates that IAT'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

	IAT	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.12%	5.26%	+0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.74%	13.97%	+1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.86%	17.24%	+4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.03%	18.45%	+10.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.78%	18.45%	+12.33%

IAT vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAT has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAT vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

IAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, more than GSIB's 1.74% 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%
IAT iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF	2.88%	2.94%	2.95%	3.56%	3.12%	1.88%	2.87%	2.49%	2.48%	1.55%	1.52%	1.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IAT and GSIB in my portfolio?

IAT and GSIB have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IAT or GSIB?

IAT has higher volatility (6.12%) compared to GSIB (5.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAT dropped -77.22% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, IAT or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.41% vs 22.99% for IAT. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% 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, IAT or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.41% return vs 22.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IAT or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for IAT.

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

IAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 1.74% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between IAT and GSIB?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for IAT and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.06), 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.