FBTC vs HODL: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) 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
FBTC and HODL are close to the same fund wearing different labels. Both sit in the Crypto category and their daily returns move almost identically, so this is not really a question of which fund is better — it is a question of which one is cheaper to own and easier to trade in your account. Everything below is about finding the small, structural edges, because the investment exposure is a wash.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FBTC scores higher: 35.9 (Grade D) versus 30.0 for HODL. That doesn't make HODL a bad fund; it means FBTC 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
| FBTC | HODL | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Crypto | Crypto |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | n/a |
| Fund size (AUM) | $10.8B | $1.0B |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | -43.82% | -43.76% |
| 3-year return | n/a | n/a |
| Volatility | 44.26% | 44.21% |
| Max drawdown | -53.35% | -53.20% |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.10 | -1.10 |
| ETFValuer score | 35.9 | 30.0 |
| Grade | D | F |
| Overall rank | #436 | #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
FBTC charges 0.25% 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 FBTC's Fees Cost You
FBTC charges an expense ratio of 0.25% 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 -43.82% for FBTC. HODL has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe -1.10 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
Both FBTC and HODL have under three years of trading history (2.6 and 2.6 years respectively). 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), FBTC and HODL show a near-perfect correlation of 1.000 — functionally interchangeable. At this level the two funds are, for practical purposes, the same investment. Owning both adds no diversification whatsoever — the decision should come down entirely to cost, spread and which one your broker handles better.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 1.000 | Near-perfect — functionally interchangeable |
| R-squared | 99.9% | 99.9% of FBTC's daily moves are explained by HODL's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 1.46% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.6y | FBTC +13.48% · HODL +13.67% | HODL ahead by 0.19 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, FBTC finished as much as +1.2 points ahead of HODL at the best extreme and -0.9 points at the worst — a 2.1-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 FBTC if…
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($11B in assets vs $1B) and the tighter spread (1.242% vs 3.171%)
Lean HODL if…
- You prefer to keep holdings under one roof at VanEck
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
FBTC 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 FBTC or HODL better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FBTC scores higher: 35.9 (Grade D) versus 30.0 for HODL. That doesn't make HODL a bad fund; it means FBTC 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, FBTC or HODL?
FBTC charges 0.25% 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 FBTC and HODL?
You can, but there's little point. FBTC and HODL have a daily return correlation of 1.00 over the past 2.6 years, meaning they move almost in lockstep. Holding both roughly doubles a single bet rather than spreading it — pick whichever wins on cost and liquidity and put the money in one place.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.