FBTC vs IBIT: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) and iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) — both Crypto funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
FBTC and IBIT 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 — IBIT scores higher: 38.3 (Grade D) versus 35.8 for FBTC. That doesn't make FBTC a bad fund; it means IBIT 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 | IBIT | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Crypto | Crypto |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $10.2B | $43.2B |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | -46.00% | -45.98% |
| 3-year return | n/a | n/a |
| Volatility | 44.23% | 44.34% |
| Max drawdown | -53.35% | -53.30% |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.15 | -1.15 |
| ETFValuer score | 35.8 | 38.3 |
| Grade | D | D |
| Overall rank | #430 | #425 |
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
On cost, the two are essentially tied — FBTC charges 0.25% a year versus IBIT's 0.25%. A difference this small (about $0.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other. That matters more than usual here: when two funds track the same exposure this closely, fee is normally the whole argument — and with the fees this close, there is no argument left. Liquidity and whichever one trades commission-free in your account become the tiebreaker.
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: IBIT returned -45.98% against -46.00% for FBTC. IBIT has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe -1.15 vs -1.15). 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 IBIT have under three years of trading history (2.5 and 2.5 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 2.5 years of daily returns (634 shared trading days), FBTC and IBIT 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 IBIT's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 1.24% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.5y | FBTC +13.15% · IBIT +13.15% | IBIT ahead by 0.01 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 +0.9 points ahead of IBIT at the best extreme and -0.8 points at the worst — a 1.7-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 prefer to keep holdings under one roof at Fidelity Investments
Lean IBIT if…
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($43B in assets vs $10B) and the tighter spread (0.055% vs 0.538%)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is FBTC or IBIT better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — IBIT scores higher: 38.3 (Grade D) versus 35.8 for FBTC. That doesn't make FBTC a bad fund; it means IBIT 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 IBIT?
IBIT currently has the lower expense ratio (0.25% vs. 0.25%).
Can I hold both FBTC and IBIT?
You can, but there's little point. FBTC and IBIT have a daily return correlation of 1.00 over the past 2.5 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.