SMCF vs. GSIB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SMCF (Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF) and GSIB (Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMCF is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while GSIB is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Themes. SMCF is passively managed, while GSIB is actively managed. Over the past year, SMCF returned 32.62% vs 48.44% for GSIB. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SMCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for GSIB.

Performance

SMCF vs. GSIB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF (SMCF) and Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with SMCF having a 17.06% return and GSIB slightly lower at 16.30%.

SMCF

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: 1.60%
• YTD: 17.06%
• 6M: 14.76%
• 1Y: 32.62%
• 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)

SMCF vs. GSIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SMCF Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF	17.06%	9.56%	16.30%	1.75%
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	16.30%	61.67%	32.86%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between SMCF and GSIB is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.59

The correlation between SMCF and GSIB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMCF vs. GSIB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMCF	GSIB
Financial Services	48.8%	100.0%
Energy	17.1%	-
Technology	13.0%	-
Industrials	9.1%	-
Healthcare	4.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.1%	-
Communication Services	1.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	-
Basic Materials	0.7%	-
Real Estate	0.5%	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SMCF vs. GSIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMCF

SMCF Risk / Return Rank: 72
SMCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
SMCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
SMCF Omega Ratio Rank: 64
SMCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
SMCF Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

SMCF vs. GSIB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	SMCF	GSIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.80	-0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	3.85	-0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.47	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.60	3.50	+1.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.30	12.33	-0.04

SMCF vs. GSIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMCF Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the GSIB Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMCF 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

SMCF vs. GSIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMCF drawdown since its inception was -28.48%, which is greater than GSIB's maximum drawdown of -17.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMCF and GSIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMCF	GSIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.48%	-17.71%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-13.90%	+6.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.60%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.19%	-2.03%	-3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.66%	3.94%	-1.28%

Volatility

SMCF vs. GSIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF (SMCF) is 3.23%, while Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF (GSIB) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that SMCF 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

	SMCF	GSIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.23%	4.91%	-1.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.86%	14.38%	-4.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.10%	17.41%	-1.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.21%	18.45%	+1.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.21%	18.45%	+1.76%

SMCF vs. GSIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

SMCF vs. GSIB - Dividend Comparison

SMCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.34%, more than GSIB's 1.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GSIB Themes Global Systemically Important Banks ETF	1.64%	1.91%	1.67%
SMCF Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF	3.34%	3.91%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMCF and GSIB in my portfolio?

SMCF and GSIB have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMCF or GSIB?

GSIB has higher volatility (4.91%) compared to SMCF (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMCF dropped -28.48% vs GSIB's -17.71%.

Which ETF is better, SMCF or GSIB?

On 1-year performance, GSIB leads with 48.44% vs 32.62% for SMCF. On fees, SMCF is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, SMCF has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMCF or GSIB?

Over the 1-year period, GSIB has performed better with a 48.44% return vs 32.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMCF or GSIB?

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

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

SMCF has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 1.64% for GSIB.

What is the main difference between SMCF and GSIB?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.04), 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.