BTC vs FIAT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BTC and FIAT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BTC is Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF, while FIAT is YieldMax Short COIN Option Income Strategy ETF. BTC has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has BTC ahead on AIQ Score, 56 versus 35.
| Metric | BTC | FIAT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 1.05% |
| Holdings | 1 | 15 |
| Average volume | 1,756,341 | 67,435 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -23.9% | -36.7% |
| YTD return | -5.8% | -41.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 58.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.4% | -59.2% |
| Beta | 1.76 | -2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | -0.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 35/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 49/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 50/100 | 13/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF vs YieldMax Short COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
BTC leads
BTC leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 31 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support BTC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF
YieldMax Short COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTC over FIAT, 56 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. BTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. BTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor BTC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF and YieldMax Short COIN Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BTC vs FIAT: 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 | BTC | FIAT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 1.05% | BTC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -48.4% | -59.2% | BTC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 45% | 58.4% | BTC |
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 BTC and FIAT 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.
- Risk Resilience50 vs 13BTC +37
- Quality58 vs 35BTC +23
- Momentum57 vs 49BTC +8
3 of 3 evidence groups favor BTC. BTC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
BTC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTC and FIAT both carry a full feed there.
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 | BTC | FIAT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 1.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1 | 15 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,756,341 | 67,435 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 58.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.4% | -59.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.54 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.76 | -2.18 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor BTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTC | 56 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | BTC | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day 11.9% vs -27.3% |
| Risk Resilience | BTC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 13 |
| 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 BTC and FIAT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 BTC.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20BTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BTC +21
- 56 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- BTC +20
- 52 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- BTC +31
- 58 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- BTC +19
- 52 vs 33
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FIAT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (33.99%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.37%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
BTC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.38%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.58%, 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.
- 1FIAT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTC's edge.
- 2FIAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 21-point move would eliminate BTC'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.
Performance
BTC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BTC | FIAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.3% | 11.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25.2% | -19.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.9% | -27% |
| Year to date | -5.8% | -41.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.9% | -36.7% |
Technicals
BTC has the stronger structure| Metric | BTC | FIAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.7 | 58.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.9% | -27.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.6% | 37.5% |
Risk
BTC is the more resilient| Metric | BTC | FIAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.76 | -2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.68 | -0.71 |
| Max drawdown | -48.4% | -59.2% |
| Current drawdown | -27.5% | -54.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 58.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -7.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
BTC has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 1.05% for FIAT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
FIAT has been more volatile over the past year, at 58.4% annualized against 45% for BTC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BTC fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -48.4% against -59.2% for FIAT.
Compare BTC and FIAT 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.