PCGG vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -4.12% vs 44.95% for GSIB. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

PCGG vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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, PCGG achieves a -5.56% return, which is significantly lower than GSIB's 10.94% return.

PCGG

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: -5.56%
• 6M: -5.24%
• 1Y: -4.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSIB

• 1D: 1.36%
• 1M: 4.75%
• YTD: 10.94%
• 6M: 17.71%
• 1Y: 44.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PCGG vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-5.56%	1.62%	12.40%	1.28%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	10.94%	61.67%	32.86%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and GSIB is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2023	0.51

The correlation between PCGG and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCGG vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCGG	GSIB
Technology	40.1%	-
Financial Services	17.5%	100.0%
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Healthcare	13.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	-
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

GSIB

GSIB Risk / Return Rank: 72
GSIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
GSIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GSIB Omega Ratio Rank: 72
GSIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GSIB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

PCGG vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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.

	PCGG	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.27	2.63	-2.90
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.27	3.61	-3.88
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.44	-0.47
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.18	3.25	-3.43
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	11.47	-11.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCGG vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.27, which is lower than the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG 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

	PCGG	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.27	2.63	-2.90
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	2.39	-2.13

Drawdowns

PCGG vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-17.71%	-4.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-13.90%	-8.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.28%	0.00%	-10.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.94%	-2.06%	-2.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.10%	3.94%	+5.16%

Volatility

PCGG vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) is 3.47%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 5.55%. This indicates that PCGG 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

	PCGG	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.47%	5.55%	-2.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.00%	13.92%	-1.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.20%	17.19%	-1.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.62%	18.45%	-1.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.62%	18.45%	-1.83%

PCGG vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GSIB's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GSIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.72%	1.91%	1.67%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and GSIB in my portfolio?

PCGG and GSIB have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCGG or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (5.55%) compared to PCGG (3.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 44.95% vs -4.12% for PCGG. On fees, GSIB is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 3.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 44.95% return vs -4.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or GSIB?

GSIB is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

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

GSIB has the higher dividend yield at 1.72%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between PCGG and GSIB?

PCGG is categorized as Global Equities, while GSIB is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Polen and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.35% for GSIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs -0.27), 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.