NLR vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NLR is a Uranium fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. NLR is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, NLR returned 19.00% vs 47.83% for GSIB. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NLR charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

NLR vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) 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, NLR achieves a -1.81% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 13.98% return.

NLR

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -9.40%
• YTD: -1.81%
• 6M: -3.70%
• 1Y: 19.00%
• 3Y*: 29.88%
• 5Y*: 19.78%
• 10Y*: 12.80%

GSIB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 8.41%
• YTD: 13.98%
• 6M: 16.88%
• 1Y: 47.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NLR vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	-1.81%	56.50%	14.26%	-0.86%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	13.98%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between NLR and GSIB is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.44

NLR vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NLR	GSIB
Energy	45.3%	-
Utilities	38.1%	-
Industrials	15.1%	-
Technology	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

NLR vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

NLR

NLR Risk / Return Rank: 18
NLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
NLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
NLR Omega Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
NLR Martin Ratio Rank: 17

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 81
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

NLR vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) 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.

	NLR	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.44	2.59	-2.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.90	3.58	-2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.43	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.63	3.28	-2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.41	11.54	-10.13

NLR vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NLR Sharpe Ratio is 0.44, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NLR 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

NLR vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NLR drawdown since its inception was -65.05%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NLR and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	NLR	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.05%	-17.71%	-47.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.72%	-13.90%	-15.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.48%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.48%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.81%	0.00%	-25.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-35.70%	-2.05%	-33.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.33%	3.94%	+9.39%

Volatility

NLR vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a higher volatility of 13.73% compared to Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) at 5.59%. This indicates that NLR'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

	NLR	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.73%	5.59%	+8.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.75%	14.41%	+19.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.85%	17.63%	+25.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.56%	18.51%	+11.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.22%	18.51%	+5.71%

NLR vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

NLR has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

NLR vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

NLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, more than GSIB's 1.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.67%	1.91%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF	2.60%	2.55%	0.76%	4.54%	2.02%	1.99%	2.23%	2.21%	3.91%	4.86%	3.62%	3.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NLR and GSIB in my portfolio?

NLR and GSIB have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NLR or GSIB?

NLR has higher volatility (13.73%) compared to GSIB (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NLR dropped -65.05% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, NLR or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 47.83% vs 19.00% for NLR. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, GSIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NLR or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 47.83% return vs 19.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NLR or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.

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

NLR has the higher dividend yield at 2.60%, compared with 1.67% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between NLR and GSIB?

NLR is categorized as Uranium, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for NLR and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 0.44), 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.