IXG vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IXG (iShares Global Financials ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. IXG is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, IXG returned 12.70% vs 42.41% for GSIB. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IXG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

IXG vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) 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, IXG achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 9.75% return.

IXG

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 3.74%
• 1Y: 12.70%
• 3Y*: 22.63%
• 5Y*: 10.96%
• 10Y*: 11.83%

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)

IXG vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	-0.23%	28.54%	25.69%	2.15%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between IXG and GSIB is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.85

The correlation between IXG and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

IXG vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IXG	GSIB
Financial Services	97.8%	100.0%
Technology	1.1%	-
Industrials	0.2%	-
Energy	0.1%	-
Healthcare	0.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

IXG vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

IXG

IXG Risk / Return Rank: 25
IXG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
IXG Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
IXG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
IXG Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IXG Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

IXG vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) 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.

	IXG	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.93	2.47	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.40	3.43	-2.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.41	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	3.07	-1.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.97	10.80	-6.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IXG vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXG Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXG 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

	IXG	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93	2.47	-1.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	2.35	-2.11

Drawdowns

IXG vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXG drawdown since its inception was -78.42%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXG and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IXG	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.42%	-17.71%	-60.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.33%	-13.90%	+2.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.20%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.88%	-1.07%	-1.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.75%	-2.06%	-17.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	3.94%	-0.73%

Volatility

IXG vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) is 3.70%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that IXG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSIB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IXG	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.70%	5.26%	-1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.90%	13.97%	-3.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.67%	17.24%	-3.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.34%	18.45%	-1.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.12%	18.45%	+1.67%

IXG vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

IXG vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

IXG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, 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%
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	2.05%	2.04%	2.64%	2.62%	3.71%	1.69%	2.13%	2.87%	3.14%	2.12%	2.21%	2.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IXG and GSIB in my portfolio?

IXG and GSIB have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IXG or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to IXG (3.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXG dropped -78.42% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, IXG or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.41% vs 12.70% for IXG. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IXG has been the lower-risk option at 3.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IXG or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.41% return vs 12.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IXG or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for IXG.

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

IXG has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 1.74% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between IXG and GSIB?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IXG and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 0.93), 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.