GBTC vs IBIT ETF Comparison
Compare GBTC and IBIT across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between GBTC and IBIT?
GBTC is Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, while IBIT is iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF. GBTC is tied to Alternatives; IBIT is tied to Alternatives. IBIT is broader by holdings count, with 1 positions versus 0 for GBTC. IBIT has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | GBTC | IBIT | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.5% | 0.25% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $10.1B | $60.0B | Fund |
| Holdings | 0 | 1 | Fund |
| Average volume | 4,247,093 | 44,088,018 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Alternatives | Alternatives | Fund |
| 1Y return | -28.2% | -27.3% | Performance |
| YTD return | -7.5% | -6.6% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 45.2% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -53.8% | -53.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.69 | 1.70 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.60 | -0.57 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.96 | -0.91 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 66/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 81/100 | 80/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 39/100 | 19/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF vs iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF
IBIT leads
IBIT leads by 1 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, 66 versus 65 as of Sep 5, 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 1 points. IBIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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.
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 Resilience15%39 vs 19GBTC +20
- Quality30%65 vs 78IBIT +13
- Momentum25%81 vs 80Even
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 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2
No new signals fired.
IBIT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
IBITIBIT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GBTCGBTC on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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. |
| Assets under management | $10.1B | $60.0B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 0 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,247,093 | 44,088,018 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 45.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -53.8% | -53.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.60 | -0.57 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.69 | 1.70 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, GBTC or IBIT?
IBIT currently has more reported holdings, with 1 positions versus 0.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IBIT has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IBIT has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IBIT has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
IBIT currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 66 to 65.
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 | 65 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 19.4% vs 19.6%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GBTC | Risk Resilience 39 vs 19 |
| 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 1 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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3IBIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBIT +1
- 65 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 66 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- IBIT +1
- 53 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.15%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 down over the latest session (price -2.39%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down 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 Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IBIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 23.4% | 23.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.3% | 21.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.9% | 14.8% |
| Year to date | -7.5% | -6.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.2% | -27.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.9 | 83.8 |
| ADX (14) | 33.1 | 32.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 19.4% | 19.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.1% | 44.4% |
Risk
GBTC is the more resilient| Metric | GBTC | IBIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.69 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.6 | -0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.96 | -0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -53.8% | -53.3% |
| Current drawdown | -35.8% | -35% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 45.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GBTC or IBIT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBIT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 66 against GBTC's 65. The edge comes from quality. GBTC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is GBTC or IBIT the better buy right now?
IBIT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBIT over GBTC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GBTC leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; IBIT leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, GBTC or IBIT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, GBTC or IBIT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, GBTC or IBIT?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, GBTC or IBIT?
GBTC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GBTC on Risk Resilience, by 20 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GBTC more profitable than IBIT?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IBIT's lead over GBTC getting stronger or weaker?
IBIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when IBIT moved ahead of GBTC.
What would change the GBTC vs IBIT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GBTC closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBIT's edge; GBTC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IBIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about GBTC and IBIT?
GBTC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. IBIT: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on GBTC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IBIT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GBTC and IBIT with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.