YBTC vs YETH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
YBTC and YETH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. YBTC is Roundhill Investments - Bitcoin Covered Call Strategy ETF, while YETH is Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has YBTC ahead on AIQ Score, 49 versus 34.
| Metric | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.96% |
| Holdings | 6 | 6 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 56.01% | 81.77% |
| Average volume | 75,567 | 59,644 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -52.6% | -61.3% |
| YTD return | -34.1% | -48.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 40.5% | 52.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -59% | -67.9% |
| Beta | 1.56 | 2.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.65 | -1.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.23 | -1.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 49/100 | 34/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 50/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 48/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - Bitcoin Covered Call Strategy ETF vs Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF
YBTC leads
YBTC leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support YBTC, and its lead is widening.
Roundhill Investments - Bitcoin Covered Call Strategy ETF
Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YBTC over YETH, 49 versus 34 as of Oct 21, 2026. YBTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. YBTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor YBTC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. YBTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Investments - Bitcoin Covered Call Strategy ETF and Roundhill Investments - Ether Covered Call Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
YBTC 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 | YBTC | YETH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.96% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 6 | 6 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 56.01% | 81.77% | YETH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -59% | -67.9% | YBTC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 40.5% | 52.7% | YBTC |
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 YBTC 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.
- Risk Resilience74 vs 48YBTC +26
- Momentum50 vs 25YBTC +25
- Quality36 vs 34Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor YBTC. YBTC’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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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.
YBTC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — YBTC 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 | YBTC | YETH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.96% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 6 | 6 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 75,567 | 59,644 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 40.5% | 52.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -59% | -67.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.65 | -1.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.56 | 2.04 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
YBTC and YETH share 91.61% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
3 holdings are unique to YBTC, and 3 holdings are unique to YETH. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | YBTC | YETH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 912797UJ4United States Treasury Bill 10/08/2026 | 90.45% | 86.67% | 86.67% |
| FGXXXFirst American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 4.95% | 5.32% | 4.95% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What YBTC adds that YETH doesn’t
| Holding | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| 4IBIT 260918P00043870IBIT 09/18/2026 43.87 P | 1.89% | Not held |
| 4IBIT 260918C00043870IBIT 09/18/2026 43.87 C | 1.85% | Not held |
| 4IBIT 260918C00045700IBIT 09/18/2026 45.7 C | 0.54% | Not held |
What YETH adds that YBTC doesn’t
| Holding | YETH | YBTC |
|---|---|---|
| 2ETHA 260918C00018260ETHA 09/18/2026 18.26 C | 5.63% | Not held |
| 2ETHA 260918P00018260ETHA 09/18/2026 18.26 P | 0.91% | Not held |
| 2ETHA 260918C00020430ETHA 09/18/2026 20.43 C | 0.76% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
YBTC vs YETH: five-year payout growth
YBTC began paying distributions in 2024, so it 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 | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $21.632 | $19.107 |
| 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 YBTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YBTC | 49 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | YBTC | Price vs 50-day 3.1% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -9% vs -16.9% |
| Risk Resilience | YBTC | Risk Resilience 74 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 YBTC 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 15 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)
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 YBTC.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20YBTC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YBTC +15
- 49 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- YBTC +15
- 47 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- YBTC +4
- 53 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when YBTC moved ahead of YETH.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only YETH
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +1.07%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to YBTC's edge.
- 2YETH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3YBTC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
YBTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.1% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.6% | -0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.2% | -24.8% |
| Year to date | -34.1% | -48.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -52.6% | -61.3% |
Technicals
YBTC has the stronger structure| Metric | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.7 | 30.8 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.1% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9% | -16.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.4% | 32.2% |
Risk
YBTC is the more resilient| Metric | YBTC | YETH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.56 | 2.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.65 | -1.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.23 | -1.99 |
| Max drawdown | -59% | -67.9% |
| Current drawdown | -53.5% | -63.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.5% | 52.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do YBTC and YETH overlap?
YBTC and YETH share 91.61% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to YBTC, and 3 holdings are unique to YETH. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, YBTC or YETH?
They hold a similar number of positions: 6 for YBTC and 6 for YETH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.95% for YBTC and 0.96% for YETH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
YETH, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 81.77% against 56.01% for YBTC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
YETH has been more volatile over the past year, at 52.7% annualized against 40.5% for YBTC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
YBTC fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -59% against -67.9% for YETH.
Compare YBTC 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.