ETHA vs GBTC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ETHA and GBTC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ETHA is iShares Ethereum Trust ETF, while GBTC is Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF. ETHA has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GBTC ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 45.
| Metric | ETHA | GBTC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 1.5% |
| Holdings | 2 | 1 |
| Average volume | 11,834,391 | 1,805,020 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -37.2% | -24.9% |
| YTD return | -18.2% | -6.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -48.9% |
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.73 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 45/100 | 59/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 30/100 | 56/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 23/100 | 52/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF vs Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF
GBTC leads
GBTC leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support GBTC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GBTC over ETHA, 59 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. GBTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. GBTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GBTC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GBTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Ethereum Trust ETF and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ETHA vs GBTC: 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 | ETHA | GBTC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 1.5% | ETHA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -61.6% | -48.9% | GBTC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.8% | 45% | GBTC |
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
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ETHA and GBTC 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 Resilience23 vs 52GBTC +29
- Momentum30 vs 56GBTC +26
- Quality68 vs 65Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor GBTC. GBTC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
GBTC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETHA and GBTC 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 | ETHA | GBTC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 1.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,834,391 | 1,805,020 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -48.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.76 | 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 GBTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GBTC | 45 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GBTC | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 7.4%; vs 200-day 9.4% vs 11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GBTC | Risk Resilience 23 vs 52 |
| 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 ETHA and GBTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 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 widening. (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 GBTC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GBTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GBTC +14
- 45 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- GBTC +9
- 47 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- GBTC +2
- 60 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- GBTC +5
- 55 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 17 when GBTC moved ahead of ETHA.
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 ETHA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.51%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GBTC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GBTC 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 +2.47%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.39%, 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.
- 1ETHA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBTC's edge.
- 2ETHA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GBTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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 | ETHA | GBTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| Gross margin | — | 0% |
| Operating margin | — | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 0% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
GBTC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ETHA | GBTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.6% | -4.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.4% | 24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -18.2% | -6.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -37.2% | -24.9% |
Technicals
GBTC has the stronger structure| Metric | ETHA | GBTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 45.4 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.4% | 11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.8% | 21.4% |
Risk
GBTC is the more resilient| Metric | ETHA | GBTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -61.6% | -48.9% |
| Current drawdown | -40% | -28.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
ETHA has the lower expense ratio, 0.25% a year against 1.5% for GBTC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ETHA has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.8% annualized against 45% for GBTC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GBTC fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -48.9% against -61.6% for ETHA.
Compare ETHA and GBTC 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.