BLOX vs ETHA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BLOX and ETHA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BLOX is Nicholas Crypto Income ETF, while ETHA is iShares Ethereum Trust ETF. BLOX is broader by holdings count, with 62 positions versus 2 for ETHA. ETHA has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has ETHA ahead on AIQ Score, 45 versus 38.
What is the main difference between BLOX and ETHA?
BLOX holds 62 positions to ETHA's 2.
| Metric | BLOX | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 62 | 2 |
| Average volume | 374,434 | 11,834,391 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -53.5% | -37.2% |
| YTD return | -31.2% | -18.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 57.8% | 62.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -61.6% |
| Beta | 2.99 | 2.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.75 | -0.73 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 38/100 | 45/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 30/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 44/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nicholas Crypto Income ETF vs iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
ETHA leads
ETHA leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support ETHA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Nicholas Crypto Income ETF
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ETHA over BLOX, 45 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. ETHA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BLOX holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ETHA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor ETHA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ETHA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nicholas Crypto Income ETF and iShares Ethereum Trust ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BLOX vs ETHA: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | BLOX | ETHA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 0.25% | ETHA |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 62 | 2 | BLOX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -56.1% | -61.6% | BLOX |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 57.8% | 62.8% | BLOX |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BLOX and ETHA against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality35 vs 68ETHA +33
- Risk Resilience44 vs 23BLOX +21
- Momentum24 vs 30ETHA +6
2 of 3 evidence groups favor ETHA. ETHA’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BLOX keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ETHA's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BLOX and ETHA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ETHA (iShares Ethereum Trust ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BLOX (Nicholas Crypto Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 35.2% against 29.8%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | BLOX | ETHA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 0.25% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 62 | 2 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 374,434 | 11,834,391 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 57.8% | 62.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -61.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | -0.48 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.99 | 2.46 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor ETHA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ETHA | 38 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | ETHA | Price vs 50-day -10.9% vs 2%; vs 200-day -23% vs 9.4% |
| Risk Resilience | BLOX | Risk Resilience 44 vs 23 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BLOX and ETHA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on ETHA.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20ETHA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ETHA +7
- 38 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- ETHA +9
- 38 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ETHA +15
- 45 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 6 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BLOX
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.07%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ETHA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.90%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ETHA leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.39%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.47%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BLOX closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ETHA's edge.
- 2BLOX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ETHA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ETHA's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | BLOX | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -84.2% | — |
| Gross margin | 78.7% | — |
| Operating margin | -4.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -5.6% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0 | — |
Performance
ETHA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BLOX | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.9% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.7% | -11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -20% | 26.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.1% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | -31.2% | -18.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -53.5% | -37.2% |
Technicals
ETHA has the stronger structure| Metric | BLOX | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.2 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.9% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23% | 9.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.2% | 29.8% |
Risk
BLOX is the more resilient| Metric | BLOX | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.99 | 2.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.75 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -56.1% | -61.6% |
| Current drawdown | -55.3% | -40% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.8% | 62.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BLOX and ETHA?
BLOX holds 62 positions to ETHA's 2.
Which ETF is more diversified, BLOX or ETHA?
BLOX holds more positions: 62 versus 2 for ETHA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
ETHA has the lower expense ratio, 0.25% a year against 0.99% for BLOX.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ETHA has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.8% annualized against 57.8% for BLOX.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BLOX fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -56.1% against -61.6% for ETHA.
Compare BLOX and ETHA with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.