BCCC vs. BTRN

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and BTRN (Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds from Global X. BCCC is actively managed, while BTRN is passively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -34.03% vs -24.65% for BTRN. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BTRN.

Performance

BCCC vs. BTRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF (BTRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -22.30% return, which is significantly lower than BTRN's -9.90% return.

BCCC

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 1.59%
• 6M: -24.48%
• YTD: -22.30%
• 1Y: -34.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BTRN

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: -0.82%
• 6M: -9.62%
• YTD: -9.90%
• 1Y: -24.65%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BCCC vs. BTRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-22.30%	-7.02%
BTRN Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF	-9.90%	-9.95%

Correlation

The correlation between BCCC and BTRN is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	0.67

The correlation between BCCC and BTRN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BCCC vs. BTRN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BCCC

BCCC Risk / Return Rank: 2
BCCC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BCCC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BCCC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
BCCC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

BTRN

BTRN Risk / Return Rank: 1
BTRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
BTRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BTRN Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BTRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BTRN Martin Ratio Rank: 2

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BCCC vs. BTRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF (BTRN). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BCCC	BTRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.92	-1.20	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.21	-1.64	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	0.77	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.78	-0.82	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.34	-1.29	-0.04

BCCC vs. BTRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCCC Sharpe Ratio is -0.92, which is comparable to the BTRN Sharpe Ratio of -1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCCC and BTRN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BCCC vs. BTRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.79%, which is greater than BTRN's maximum drawdown of -36.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and BTRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCCC	BTRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.79%	-36.97%	-4.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.79%	-26.45%	-15.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.90%	-25.80%	-12.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.82%	-14.88%	-3.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.46%	16.74%	+7.72%

Volatility

BCCC vs. BTRN - Volatility Comparison

Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF (BTRN) at 1.59%. This indicates that BCCC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BTRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCCC	BTRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	1.59%	+6.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.17%	10.23%	+18.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.57%	18.09%	+17.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.79%	30.30%	+4.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.79%	30.30%	+4.49%

BCCC vs. BTRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than BTRN's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCCC vs. BTRN - Dividend Comparison

BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 61.96%, more than BTRN's 31.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	61.96%	29.55%	0.00%
BTRN Global X Bitcoin Trend Strategy ETF	31.16%	27.76%	2.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCCC and BTRN in my portfolio?

BCCC and BTRN have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCCC or BTRN?

BCCC has higher volatility (7.93%) compared to BTRN (1.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.79% vs BTRN's -36.97%.

Which ETF is better, BCCC or BTRN?

On 1-year performance, BTRN leads with -24.65% vs -34.03% for BCCC. On fees, BCCC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, BTRN has been the lower-risk option at 1.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCCC or BTRN?

Over the 1-year period, BTRN has performed better with a -24.65% return vs -34.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCCC or BTRN?

BCCC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BTRN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCCC or BTRN?

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 61.96%, compared with 31.16% for BTRN.

What is the main difference between BCCC and BTRN?

Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.95% for BTRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCCC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.92 vs -1.20), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.