GBTC vs YETH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GBTC and YETH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GBTC is Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, while YETH is Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF. YETH has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GBTC ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 34.
| Metric | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.5% | 0.96% |
| Holdings | 1 | 6 |
| Average volume | 1,805,020 | 59,644 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -24.9% | -61.3% |
| YTD return | -6.8% | -48.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 52.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.9% | -67.9% |
| Beta | 1.76 | 2.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -1.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -1.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 34/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 52/100 | 48/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF vs Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF
GBTC leads
GBTC leads by 25 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support GBTC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF
Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GBTC over YETH, 59 versus 34 as of Oct 21, 2026. GBTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality 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 13 to 25 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF and Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GBTC vs YETH: 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 | YETH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.5% | 0.96% | YETH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -48.9% | -67.9% | GBTC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 45% | 52.7% | 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
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 GBTC and YETH 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.
- Quality65 vs 34GBTC +31
- Momentum56 vs 25GBTC +31
- Risk Resilience52 vs 48GBTC +4
3 of 3 evidence groups favor GBTC. GBTC’s edge is concentrated in quality 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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GBTC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GBTC and YETH 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 | GBTC | YETH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.5% | 0.96% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1 | 6 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,805,020 | 59,644 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 52.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -48.9% | -67.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -1.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.76 | 2.04 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
GBTC vs YETH: five-year payout growth
GBTC has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. YETH began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| Peer rank | not ranked | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
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 | 59 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GBTC | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs -16.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GBTC | Risk Resilience 52 vs 48 |
| 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 YETH 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 25 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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20GBTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 25 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GBTC +25
- 59 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- GBTC +24
- 56 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- GBTC +13
- 62 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GBTC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.14%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only YETH
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.34%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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 +2.39%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.99%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1YETH closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to GBTC's edge.
- 2YETH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.7% | -0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | -24.8% |
| Year to date | -6.8% | -48.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.9% | -61.3% |
Technicals
GBTC has the stronger structure| Metric | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.4 | 30.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | -16.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.4% | 32.2% |
Risk
GBTC is the more resilient| Metric | GBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.76 | 2.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -1.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.73 | -1.99 |
| Max drawdown | -48.9% | -67.9% |
| Current drawdown | -28.4% | -63.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 52.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
YETH has the lower expense ratio, 0.96% a year against 1.5% for GBTC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
YETH has been more volatile over the past year, at 52.7% 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 -67.9% for YETH.
Compare GBTC and YETH 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.