ETHE vs HODL: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF (ETHE) and VanEck Bitcoin ETF (HODL) — both Crypto funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of August 09, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
ETHE and HODL compete directly — both are Crypto funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — HODL scores higher: 30.0 (Grade F) versus 15.3 for ETHE. That doesn't make ETHE a bad fund; it means HODL currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| ETHE | HODL | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Crypto | Crypto |
| Expense ratio | 2.50% | n/a |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.4B | $1.0B |
| Dividend yield | 1.32% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | -48.59% | -43.76% |
| 3-year return | +54.94% | n/a |
| Volatility | 66.58% | 44.21% |
| Max drawdown | -68.17% | -53.20% |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.80 | -1.10 |
| ETFValuer score | 15.3 | 30.0 |
| Grade | F | F |
| Overall rank | #458 | #451 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
ETHE charges 2.50% a year. No net expense ratio is currently reported for HODL through our data source, so the two can't be compared on cost here — check the issuer's fact sheet for its current fee before deciding.
What ETHE's Fees Cost You
ETHE charges an expense ratio of 2.50% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Because at least one of these funds is too young for a 3-year record, the comparison rests on the 1-year window: HODL returned -43.76% against -48.59% for ETHE. ETHE has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe -0.80 vs -1.10). A single year says very little about how either fund behaves across a full market cycle, so weight this far less heavily than you would a long record.
A Note on Comparing These Two
HODL has only 2.6 years of trading history, against a full three-year record for ETHE. That makes several figures below not directly comparable: the 3-year return is unavailable, and the maximum drawdown covers a shorter — and possibly calmer — stretch of market history. A shallow drawdown on a young fund means it has not yet been tested, not that it held up well.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 2.6 years of daily returns (644 shared trading days), ETHE and HODL show a strong correlation of 0.794 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.794 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 63.0% | 63.0% of ETHE's daily moves are explained by HODL's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 45.82% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.6y | ETHE -8.16% · HODL +13.67% | HODL ahead by 21.84 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, ETHE finished as much as +59.8 points ahead of HODL at the best extreme and -112.7 points at the worst — a 172.5-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean ETHE if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 1.32% against 0.00%
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of -0.80 beats -1.10
Lean HODL if…
- It has been the calmer ride (44.2% volatility vs 66.6%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-53.2% vs -68.2%)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
See it in a portfolio
ETHE isn't one of the twelve funds in the portfolio game, but IBIT — Bitcoin — sits in the same category and is. It is an equivalent, not a substitute: different holdings, different fee, different returns.
Free, no sign-up, virtual money only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ETHE or HODL better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — HODL scores higher: 30.0 (Grade F) versus 15.3 for ETHE. That doesn't make ETHE a bad fund; it means HODL currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, ETHE or HODL?
ETHE charges 2.50% a year. No net expense ratio is currently reported for HODL through our data source, so the two can't be ranked on cost here.
Can I hold both ETHE and HODL?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. ETHE and HODL correlate at only 0.79 over the past 2.6 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.