ETHA vs IBIT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ETHA and IBIT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ETHA is iShares Ethereum Trust ETF, while IBIT is iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IBIT ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 45.
| Metric | ETHA | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 2 | 2 |
| Average volume | 11,834,391 | 45,678,744 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -37.2% | -24% |
| YTD return | -18.2% | -5.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -48.4% |
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.69 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 45/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 30/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 23/100 | 35/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF vs iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF
IBIT leads
IBIT leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support IBIT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF
iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBIT over ETHA, 61 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. IBIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. IBIT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor IBIT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IBIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Ethereum Trust ETF and iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ETHA vs IBIT: 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 | IBIT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 0.25% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2 | 2 | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -61.6% | -48.4% | IBIT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.8% | 45.1% | IBIT |
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 IBIT 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.
- Momentum30 vs 57IBIT +27
- Risk Resilience23 vs 35IBIT +12
- Quality68 vs 78IBIT +10
3 of 3 evidence groups favor IBIT. IBIT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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.
IBIT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETHA and IBIT 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 | IBIT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.25% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2 | 2 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,834,391 | 45,678,744 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -48.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.77 | 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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor IBIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IBIT | 45 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | IBIT | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 9.4% vs 11.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IBIT | Risk Resilience 23 vs 35 |
| 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 IBIT 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 16 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 IBIT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IBIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBIT +16
- 45 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- IBIT +11
- 47 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IBIT +3
- 60 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- IBIT +6
- 55 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when IBIT 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 IBIT
- 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.
IBIT 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 +2.42%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBIT's edge.
- 2ETHA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IBIT'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.
Performance
IBIT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ETHA | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.6% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.4% | 25.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | 9.9% |
| Year to date | -18.2% | -5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -37.2% | -24% |
Technicals
IBIT has the stronger structure| Metric | ETHA | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 45.6 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.4% | 11.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.8% | 21.7% |
Risk
IBIT is the more resilient| Metric | ETHA | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.46 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.48 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -61.6% | -48.4% |
| Current drawdown | -40% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.8% | 45.1% |
| 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 ETF is more diversified, ETHA or IBIT?
They hold a similar number of positions: 2 for ETHA and 2 for IBIT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.25% a year.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ETHA has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.8% annualized against 45.1% for IBIT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IBIT fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -48.4% against -61.6% for ETHA.
Compare ETHA and IBIT 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.