GBTC vs IBIT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GBTC and IBIT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GBTC is Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, while IBIT is iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF. IBIT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IBIT ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 59.
| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.5% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 1 | 2 |
| Average volume | 1,805,020 | 45,678,744 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -24.9% | -24% |
| YTD return | -6.8% | -5.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 45.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.9% | -48.4% |
| Beta | 1.76 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.69 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 35/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF vs iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF
IBIT leads
IBIT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support IBIT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF
iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBIT over GBTC, 61 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. IBIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while GBTC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IBIT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor IBIT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. IBIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF and iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GBTC 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 | GBTC | IBIT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.5% | 0.25% | IBIT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -48.9% | -48.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 45% | 45.1% | 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
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 GBTC 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.
- Risk Resilience52 vs 35GBTC +17
- Quality65 vs 78IBIT +13
- Momentum56 vs 57Even
0 of 3 evidence groups favor IBIT. IBIT’s edge is concentrated in quality; GBTC 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 +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.
IBIT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBTC and IBIT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
GBTC (Grayscale Bitcoin 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 | GBTC | IBIT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.5% | 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 | 1,805,020 | 45,678,744 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 45.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.9% | -48.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.76 | 1.77 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 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 | Even | 59 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs 11.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GBTC | Risk Resilience 52 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 GBTC and IBIT 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (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 IBIT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IBIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBIT +2
- 59 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- IBIT +2
- 56 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IBIT +1
- 62 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- IBIT +1
- 60 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when IBIT moved ahead of GBTC.
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.
GBTC and IBIT carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure 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 +2.39%, 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.
- 1GBTC closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBIT's edge.
- 2GBTC's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| Gross margin | 0% | — |
| Operating margin | 0% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0 | — |
Performance
IBIT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.7% | 25.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | 9.9% |
| Year to date | -6.8% | -5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.9% | -24% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.4 | 45.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | 11.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 21.7% |
Risk
GBTC is the more resilient| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.76 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -48.9% | -48.4% |
| Current drawdown | -28.4% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 45.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IBIT has the lower expense ratio, 0.25% a year against 1.5% for GBTC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 45% annualized for GBTC and 45.1% for IBIT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -48.9% for GBTC and -48.4% for IBIT.
Compare GBTC 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.