IBIT.USvsFBTC.US

10-Year Study

The Verdict

Over the synchronized 10-year period measured, FBTC.US historically led across 8 distinct risk and return vectors.
IBIT.US generated a 10-year CAGR of 16.6% (Max Drawdown: 49.8%), while FBTC.US generated 16.7% (Max Drawdown: 49.9%).

IBIT.US
3
metric wins
16.6% CAGR
VS
FBTC.US
5
metric wins
16.7% CAGR
FBTC.US led on more metrics

Head-to-Head StatisticsiDetailed side-by-side breakdown of return and risk metrics.

10Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
+16.6%
VS
FBTC.US
+16.7%
5Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
+16.6%
VS
FBTC.US
+16.7%
3Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
+16.6%
VS
FBTC.US
+16.7%
1Y CAGRCAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate — the annualized rate of return over a period, accounting for compounding.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
-44.9%
VS
FBTC.US
-44.9%
Max DrawdownMax DrawdownThe largest peak-to-trough decline in the asset's value over the measurement period.Click for full definition →
lower is better
IBIT.US
-49.8%
VS
FBTC.US
-49.9%
Sharpe RatioSharpe RatioRisk-adjusted return: how much excess return you earn per unit of total risk (volatility).Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
0.52
VS
FBTC.US
0.52
Sortino RatioSortino RatioLike Sharpe, but only penalizes downside volatility — a more accurate risk measure for asymmetric return distributions.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
1.15
VS
FBTC.US
1.15
Ann. VolatilityAnnualized VolatilityThe annualized standard deviation of an asset's returns — a measure of how much prices fluctuate.Click for full definition →
lower is better
IBIT.US
+53.7%
VS
FBTC.US
+53.7%
% Positive Years% Positive YearsThe percentage of calendar years in the measurement period where the asset delivered a positive return.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
+0.0%
VS
FBTC.US
+0.0%
Dividend YieldDividend YieldAnnual dividend paid per share divided by the current share price — expressed as a percentage income return.Click for full definition →
IBIT.US
+0.0%
VS
FBTC.US
+0.0%
10Y Income ($10k)
IBIT.US
$0
VS
FBTC.US
$0
BetaBetaA measure of an asset's sensitivity to broad market movements relative to a benchmark (e.g. S&P 500).Click for full definition →
lower = less market sensitivity
IBIT.US
0.00
VS
FBTC.US
0.00

IBIT.US vs FBTC.US: In-Depth AnalysisiData-driven narrative breakdown of volatility, sector exposure, and income characteristics.

Volatility & Variance: Reading the Risk Fingerprint

IBIT.US (iShares Bitcoin Trust) carries an annualised volatility of 53.7%, categorised as high relative to the long-run US equity benchmark of approximately 15%. FBTC.US (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Trust) registers at 53.7%, a high reading by the same standard.

IBIT.US and FBTC.US carry virtually identical annualised volatility — both within a fraction of a percentage point of each other — making the risk profile of either fund essentially interchangeable on this dimension.

On the downside, IBIT.US's maximum peak-to-trough drawdown of 49.8% represents a catastrophic peak-to-trough collapse over the study period. FBTC.US's worst drawdown of 49.9% was a catastrophic peak-to-trough collapse. IBIT.US demonstrated stronger capital preservation during the period's worst stress events, which is particularly relevant for US investors approaching retirement or drawing down a portfolio.

When evaluating these two funds for a US-domiciled portfolio, it is important to consider that volatility and drawdown metrics are calculated on trailing historical data. Past standard deviations do not guarantee future behaviour, particularly around US Federal Reserve policy shifts, which have historically been the primary driver of cross-asset correlation breakdowns.

US Market Sector Exposure & Concentration Risk

IBIT.US is positioned primarily within US Equity. FBTC.US's exposure tilts toward US Equity. This sector divergence is one of the key structural drivers of the return and risk differences observed between the two funds over the study window.

For US investors building a diversified portfolio, the sector overlap — or lack thereof — between these two funds directly affects the marginal diversification benefit of holding both. Because both funds draw from the same US sector universe, holding both is unlikely to meaningfully reduce concentration risk beyond what either fund provides individually. An allocation to an uncorrelated asset class — such as US Treasury bonds (TLT) or commodities (PDBC) — would provide greater portfolio-level risk reduction.

Sector concentration is particularly consequential in the US equity market, where the top five S&P 500 holdings — Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA), Amazon (AMZN), and Alphabet (GOOGL) — have at times represented over 25% of the total index by market capitalisation. Funds with heavy US Technology exposure amplify this mega-cap concentration risk, while broader market or equal-weight funds dilute it.

Dividend Yield, Income Generation & US Tax Considerations

IBIT.US currently yields 0.00% annually, while FBTC.US yields 0.00%. On a $10,000 initial investment held over the study period, IBIT.US generated approximately $0 in cumulative income distributions versus $0 for FBTC.US — a gap of $0 in favour of IBIT.US.

For US taxable account holders, the character of dividend distributions matters as much as the yield itself. Qualified dividends — those from US corporations held longer than the required 60-day holding period — are taxed at preferential long-term capital gains rates (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income bracket). Non-qualified or ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income, which can reach 37% for high earners. US investors should consult their own tax advisors to understand which distribution category applies to each fund's payout history.

Income-focused US investors — particularly those using tax-advantaged accounts such as a 401(k), IRA, or Roth IRA — can compound dividend distributions without immediate tax drag. In a taxable brokerage account, a higher-yielding fund may generate less after-tax wealth than a lower-yielding fund with equivalent total return, depending on the investor's marginal tax rate. The total return (price appreciation plus reinvested dividends) is generally the more complete measure of long-term performance.

FBTC.US's higher yield of 0.00% may offer more immediate income utility for US investors prioritising cash flow, though IBIT.US's lower yield may reflect greater internal reinvestment and growth orientation within its underlying holdings.

Historical Trajectory

Growth of $10,000 Over 10 Years

Annual Returns Comparison

Performance Consistency

Rolling 12-Month Returns

Risk & Factor X-Ray AnalysisiAnalyzes downside volatility and macro factor exposures.

Proprietary StressScore™= round((Annualised Volatility × 0.5 + |Max Drawdown| × 0.5) × 100)

52/100
IBIT.US
High Stress
Vol
53.7%
MDD
-49.8%
52/100
FBTC.US
High Stress
Vol
53.7%
MDD
-49.9%

Historical Drawdowns

Return Correlation

100%
Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Highly correlated. Moving almost perfectly in tandem, providing minimal diversification benefit when held together.

Risk X-Ray Macro Factor Exposure Mapping

IBIT.US Factor Exposure
View full factor risk breakdown
FactorRisk Exposure
VTI.US5.4%
VEA.US3.3%
VWO.US1.1%
QQQ.US-5.1%
VTV.US1.8%
IJR.US-2.3%
QUAL.US-6.0%
SHV.US15.7%
TLT.US1.7%
LQD.US-1.7%
HYG.US17.8%
GLD.US-0.1%
USO.US0.1%
VNQ.US0.2%
BTC-USD.CC65.9%
CPER.US-0.4%
VIX.INDX1.0%
UUP.US-0.2%
TIP.US0.8%
Idiosyncratic1.2%
FBTC.US Factor Exposure
View full factor risk breakdown
FactorRisk Exposure
VTI.US5.2%
VEA.US3.1%
VWO.US1.2%
QQQ.US-5.1%
VTV.US2.0%
IJR.US-2.5%
QUAL.US-5.9%
SHV.US16.5%
TLT.US1.6%
LQD.US-1.7%
HYG.US17.4%
GLD.US-0.1%
USO.US0.1%
VNQ.US0.3%
BTC-USD.CC65.4%
CPER.US-0.4%
VIX.INDX1.2%
UUP.US-0.2%
TIP.US0.9%
Idiosyncratic1.2%

IBIT.US vs FBTC.US: Fees, Fund Structure & Portfolio Fundamentals

Side-by-side metric evaluation across valuation, profitability, fees, structure, and balance-sheet health.

Metric
IBIT.US
FBTC.US
Fund Structure & Fees
Expense Ratio
0.12%
0.25%
Assets Under Management (AUM)
$47.7B
$11.2B
Holdings Count
1
1
Valuation Multiples
Portfolio P/E Ratio
Price-to-Sales (P/S)
Price-to-Book (P/B)
Dividend Yield
Annual Dividend Yield
0.0%
0.0%
Market Sentiment
Short Squeeze Risk
Low
Low

Momentum & Macro PositioningiCompares relative price trends, moving averages, and market sensitivity.

50-Day SMA

IBIT.US-3.5%
FBTC.US-3.6%

200-Day SMA

IBIT.US-20.6%
FBTC.US-20.7%

Beta (Market Risk)

IBIT.US0.00
FBTC.US0.00

Trend SignalGolden Cross & Death CrossTechnical chart patterns that occur when a short-term moving average crosses over a long-term moving average.Click for full definition →

IBIT.US
DEATH CROSS
FBTC.US
DEATH CROSS

RSI (14-Day)Relative Strength Index (RSI)A momentum oscillator that measures the speed and change of price movements to identify overbought or oversold conditions.Click for full definition →

IBIT.US
53
Neutral
FBTC.US
52
Neutral

Frequently Asked Questions

How did IBIT.US compare to FBTC.US historically?

FBTC.US (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Trust) led across 8 measured metrics over the 20242026 study window, including higher risk-adjusted returns. That said, IBIT.US may appeal to investors prioritizing higher growth with more volatility tolerance. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

What is the 10-year CAGR of IBIT.US vs FBTC.US?

Over the 20242026 study period, IBIT.US produced an annualized return (CAGR) of 16.6% while FBTC.US produced 16.7%. A ${10,000} investment in IBIT.US would have grown to approximately $14,667, compared to $14,691 for FBTC.US.

What is the maximum drawdown of IBIT.US vs FBTC.US?

IBIT.US experienced a peak-to-trough drawdown of 49.8% (2026 was its worst year at -28.2%), versus 49.9% for FBTC.US (worst year 2026 at -28.2%). A smaller maximum drawdown indicates lower downside risk and is particularly important for investors close to or in retirement.

How correlated are IBIT.US and FBTC.US?

IBIT.US and FBTC.US have a Pearson return correlation of 100% over the study period. This very high correlation means the two ETFs move almost in lockstep. Holding both in the same portfolio provides minimal diversification benefit — you're largely doubling exposure to the same risk factors.

Which ETF has a better Sharpe ratio — IBIT.US or FBTC.US?

IBIT.US has a Sharpe ratio of 0.52 versus 0.52 for FBTC.US. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility) relative to a risk-free rate. FBTC.US delivered better risk-adjusted returns over the study period. IBIT.US had annualized volatility of 53.7% vs 53.7% for FBTC.US.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend — IBIT.US or FBTC.US?

IBIT.US has a dividend yield of 0.00%, while FBTC.US yields 0.00%. On a $10,000 investment, IBIT.US paid approximately $0 in cumulative income vs $0 for FBTC.US over the study period. Income-focused investors should weigh dividend yield alongside total return (price appreciation + dividends), since a lower-yielding ETF can still produce superior total returns through capital gains.

Popular ETF Comparisons

Build a Portfolio with IBIT.US or FBTC.US

Want to see how exactly these ETFs impact your actual portfolio? Run a Monte Carlo simulation or DCA backtest instantly on StressTest.pro.

Run a Custom Backtest