LGCF vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LGCF (Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGCF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Cash Flow Champions Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. LGCF is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, LGCF returned 18.10% vs 42.44% for GSIB. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LGCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

LGCF vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) 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, LGCF achieves a 4.45% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 10.03% return.

LGCF

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.45%
• 6M: 5.09%
• 1Y: 18.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: 2.10%
• YTD: 10.03%
• 6M: 14.82%
• 1Y: 42.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LGCF vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	4.45%	15.71%	17.65%	1.41%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	10.03%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between LGCF and GSIB is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.62

The correlation between LGCF and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGCF vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGCF	GSIB
Financial Services	36.2%	100.0%
Energy	21.7%	-
Healthcare	17.3%	-
Technology	8.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Basic Materials	2.3%	-
Communication Services	2.3%	-
Industrials	1.2%	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LGCF vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGCF

LGCF Risk / Return Rank: 51
LGCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
LGCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
LGCF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 71
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 71
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

LGCF vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) 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.

	LGCF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	2.46	-1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	3.40	-1.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.41	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	3.07	+0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.53	10.81	-1.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGCF vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGCF 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

	LGCF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	2.46	-1.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	2.35	-1.27

Drawdowns

LGCF vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGCF drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, smaller than the maximum GSIB drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGCF and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGCF	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-17.71%	+1.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.75%	-13.90%	+8.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-1.46%	+0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-2.06%	-0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	3.94%	-2.04%

Volatility

LGCF vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) is 2.92%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 4.96%. This indicates that LGCF 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

	LGCF	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	4.96%	-2.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	14.14%	-4.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.86%	17.37%	-4.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.16%	18.48%	-3.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.16%	18.48%	-3.32%

LGCF vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LGCF vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

LGCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, more than GSIB's 1.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.73%	1.91%	1.67%
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	1.76%	1.84%	1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGCF and GSIB in my portfolio?

LGCF and GSIB have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGCF or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (4.96%) compared to LGCF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGCF dropped -16.67% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, LGCF or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 42.44% vs 18.10% for LGCF. On fees, LGCF is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, LGCF has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGCF or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 42.44% return vs 18.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGCF or GSIB?

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

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

LGCF has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 1.73% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between LGCF and GSIB?

LGCF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LGCF and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 1.41), 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.