IYF vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IYF (iShares U.S. Financials ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. IYF is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, IYF returned 5.96% vs 42.41% for GSIB. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IYF charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

IYF vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Financials ETF (IYF) 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, IYF achieves a -5.20% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 9.75% return.

IYF

• 1D: -1.13%
• 1M: -1.00%
• YTD: -5.20%
• 6M: -3.00%
• 1Y: 5.96%
• 3Y*: 20.58%
• 5Y*: 9.52%
• 10Y*: 12.56%

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)

IYF vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IYF iShares U.S. Financials ETF	-5.20%	18.25%	31.30%	1.32%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	9.75%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between IYF and GSIB is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.72

The correlation between IYF and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

IYF vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IYF	GSIB
Financial Services	99.0%	100.0%
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Technology	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

IYF vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

IYF

IYF Risk / Return Rank: 14
IYF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
IYF Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
IYF Omega Ratio Rank: 14
IYF Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
IYF Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

IYF vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Financials ETF (IYF) 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.

	IYF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	2.47	-2.06
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.65	3.43	-2.77
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.41	-0.33
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.43	3.07	-2.63
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.18	10.80	-9.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IYF vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IYF Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IYF 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

	IYF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42	2.47	-2.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	2.35	-2.13

Drawdowns

IYF vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IYF drawdown since its inception was -79.09%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IYF and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IYF	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.09%	-17.71%	-61.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.88%	-13.90%	+0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.10%	-1.07%	-7.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.61%	-2.06%	-15.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.06%	3.94%	+1.12%

Volatility

IYF vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares U.S. Financials ETF (IYF) is 3.41%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that IYF 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

	IYF	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.41%	5.26%	-1.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.80%	13.97%	-3.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.34%	17.24%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.00%	18.45%	+0.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.89%	18.45%	+2.44%

IYF vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IYF vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

IYF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.57%, less 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%
IYF iShares U.S. Financials ETF	1.57%	1.32%	1.29%	1.67%	1.86%	1.27%	1.72%	1.64%	1.90%	1.46%	1.67%	1.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IYF and GSIB in my portfolio?

IYF and GSIB have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IYF or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to IYF (3.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IYF dropped -79.09% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, IYF or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.41% vs 5.96% for IYF. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IYF has been the lower-risk option at 3.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IYF or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.41% return vs 5.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IYF or GSIB?

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

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.57% for IYF.

What is the main difference between IYF and GSIB?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 0.42), 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.