LIF vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LIF (Life360, Inc.) is a stock, while GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) is Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. Over the past year, LIF returned -24.02% vs 48.44% for GSIB. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LIF vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Life360, Inc. (LIF) 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, LIF achieves a -26.82% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 16.30% return.

LIF

• 1D: -2.15%
• 1M: 16.71%
• YTD: -26.82%
• 6M: -30.20%
• 1Y: -24.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 7.54%
• YTD: 16.30%
• 6M: 15.82%
• 1Y: 48.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LIF vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LIF Life360, Inc.	-26.82%	55.42%	58.73%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	16.30%	61.67%	13.82%

Correlation

The correlation between LIF and GSIB is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2024	0.32

Return for Risk

LIF vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

LIF

LIF Risk / Return Rank: 30
LIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
LIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
LIF Omega Ratio Rank: 29
LIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
LIF Martin Ratio Rank: 33

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 80
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 82
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

LIF vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Life360, Inc. (LIF) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	LIF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.36	2.80	-3.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.09	3.85	-3.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.47	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.37	3.50	-3.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.58	12.33	-12.91

LIF vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LIF Sharpe Ratio is -0.36, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LIF 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.

Drawdowns

LIF vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LIF drawdown since its inception was -65.64%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LIF and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	LIF	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.64%	-17.71%	-47.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.64%	-13.90%	-51.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-57.67%	-0.60%	-57.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.77%	-2.03%	-19.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	41.75%	3.94%	+37.81%

Volatility

LIF vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

Life360, Inc. (LIF) has a higher volatility of 18.78% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 4.91%. This indicates that LIF'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

	LIF	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.78%	4.91%	+13.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	53.12%	14.38%	+38.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	67.71%	17.41%	+50.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	63.01%	18.45%	+44.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	63.01%	18.45%	+44.56%

Dividends

LIF vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

LIF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.64%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.64%	1.91%	1.67%
LIF Life360, Inc.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LIF and GSIB in my portfolio?

LIF and GSIB have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LIF or GSIB?

LIF has higher volatility (18.78%) compared to GSIB (4.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LIF dropped -65.64% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs -0.36), 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.