LGCF vs. SEIV

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LGCF (Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF) and SEIV (SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. LGCF is passively managed, while SEIV is actively managed. Over the past year, LGCF returned 18.10% vs 42.55% for SEIV. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LGCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for SEIV.

Performance

LGCF vs. SEIV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF (SEIV). 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 SEIV's 15.69% return.

LGCF

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

SEIV

• 1D: -2.15%
• 1M: 5.15%
• YTD: 15.69%
• 6M: 18.06%
• 1Y: 42.55%
• 3Y*: 26.53%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LGCF vs. SEIV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	4.45%	15.71%	17.65%	2.14%
SEIV SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF	15.69%	27.43%	19.73%	1.99%

Correlation

The correlation between LGCF and SEIV is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	0.73

The correlation between LGCF and SEIV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGCF vs. SEIV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGCF	SEIV
Financial Services	36.2%	23.0%
Energy	21.7%	0.9%
Healthcare	17.3%	18.1%
Technology	8.5%	17.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	18.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	3.9%
Basic Materials	2.3%	5.1%
Communication Services	2.3%	6.5%
Industrials	1.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	-	1.2%
Utilities	-	2.4%

Return for Risk

LGCF vs. SEIV — 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

SEIV

SEIV Risk / Return Rank: 93
SEIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
SEIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
SEIV Omega Ratio Rank: 92
SEIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
SEIV Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. SEIV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF (SEIV). 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	SEIV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	3.38	-1.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	4.55	-2.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.60	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	6.15	-2.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.53	24.96	-15.43
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. SEIV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the SEIV Sharpe Ratio of 3.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGCF and SEIV, 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	SEIV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	3.38	-1.96
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	1.19	-0.11

Drawdowns

LGCF vs. SEIV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGCF drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, smaller than the maximum SEIV drawdown of -18.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGCF and SEIV.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGCF	SEIV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-18.18%	+1.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.75%	-6.95%	+1.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-3.02%	+2.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-3.47%	+1.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	1.71%	+0.19%

Volatility

LGCF vs. SEIV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) is 2.92%, while SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF (SEIV) has a volatility of 4.60%. This indicates that LGCF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SEIV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGCF	SEIV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	4.60%	-1.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	9.37%	+0.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.86%	12.67%	+0.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.16%	16.70%	-1.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.16%	16.70%	-1.54%

LGCF vs. SEIV - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGCF has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than SEIV's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGCF vs. SEIV - Dividend Comparison

LGCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, more than SEIV's 1.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	1.76%	1.84%	1.19%	0.00%	0.00%
SEIV SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Value Factor ETF	1.37%	1.51%	1.66%	2.08%	1.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGCF and SEIV in my portfolio?

LGCF and SEIV have a correlation of 0.67, 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 SEIV?

SEIV has higher volatility (4.60%) compared to LGCF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGCF dropped -16.67% vs SEIV's -18.18%.

Which ETF is better, LGCF or SEIV?

On 1-year performance, SEIV leads with 42.55% vs 18.10% for LGCF. On fees, SEIV is cheaper at 0.15% 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 SEIV?

Over the 1-year period, SEIV has performed better with a 42.55% 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 SEIV?

SEIV is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for LGCF.

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

LGCF has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 1.37% for SEIV.

What is the main difference between LGCF and SEIV?

They also come from different issuers: Themes and SEI. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LGCF and 0.15% for SEIV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SEIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 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.