ETH vs ETHA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ETH and ETHA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ETH is Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF, while ETHA is iShares Ethereum Trust ETF. ETH has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has ETHA ahead on AIQ Score, 45 versus 39.
| Metric | ETH | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 1 | 2 |
| Average volume | 2,702,068 | 11,834,391 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -36.2% | -37.2% |
| YTD return | -17.2% | -18.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.4% | 62.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.1% | -61.6% |
| Beta | 2.44 | 2.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.69 | -0.73 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 45/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 31/100 | 30/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 47/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF vs iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
ETHA leads
ETHA leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support ETHA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ETHA over ETH, 45 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. ETHA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while ETH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ETHA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor ETHA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. ETHA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF and iShares Ethereum Trust ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ETH 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 | ETH | ETHA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.25% | ETH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -61.1% | -61.6% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.4% | 62.8% | Similar |
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 ETH 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.
- Risk Resilience47 vs 23ETH +24
- Quality58 vs 68ETHA +10
- Momentum31 vs 30Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor ETHA. ETHA’s edge is concentrated in quality; ETH 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: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 — ETH 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.
ETH (Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | ETH | ETHA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.25% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1 | 2 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,702,068 | 11,834,391 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.4% | 62.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.1% | -61.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | -0.48 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.44 | 2.46 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | 39 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 2%; vs 200-day 10% vs 9.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ETH | Risk Resilience 47 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 ETH 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 6 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ETHA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ETHA +6
- 39 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- ETHA +6
- 41 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ETHA +11
- 49 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- ETHA +10
- 45 vs 55
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ETH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ETHA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.51%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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 +2.45%, 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.
- 1ETH closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to ETHA's edge.
- 2ETH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-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 | ETH | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100% | — |
| Gross margin | 61.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 7.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | — |
Performance
ETH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ETH | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.6% | -11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.7% | 26.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.5% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | -17.2% | -18.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36.2% | -37.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ETH | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.9 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | 9.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.6% | 29.8% |
Risk
ETH is the more resilient| Metric | ETH | ETHA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.44 | 2.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.69 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -61.1% | -61.6% |
| Current drawdown | -39% | -40% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.4% | 62.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
ETH has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.25% for ETHA.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 62.4% annualized for ETH and 62.8% for ETHA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -61.1% for ETH and -61.6% for ETHA.
Compare ETH 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.