BCCC vs. CSHP
BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCCC is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Global X, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -27.47% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.
Performance
BCCC vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -22.13% return, which is significantly lower than CSHP's 1.86% return.
BCCC
- 1D
- 1.83%
- 1M
- -13.01%
- YTD
- -22.13%
- 6M
- -21.74%
- 1Y
- -27.47%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CSHP
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 1.86%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 3.96%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BCCC vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF | -22.13% | -7.02% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 1.86% | 2.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCCC and CSHP is -0.10, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025 | -0.11 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BCCC vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank
BCCC
CSHP
BCCC vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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 | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -12.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -29.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.88 | 6.67 | -5.80 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.66 | 65.84 | -66.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.21 | 395.75 | -396.96 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCCC vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.63%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and CSHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCCC | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.63% | -0.08% | -41.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -41.63% | -0.06% | -41.57% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -37.76% | -0.01% | -37.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.79% | -0.00% | -17.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 22.73% | 0.01% | +22.72% |
Volatility
BCCC vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison
Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) has a higher volatility of 10.69% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.15%. This indicates that BCCC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCCC | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.69% | 0.15% | +10.54% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 28.96% | 0.27% | +28.69% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.36% | 0.36% | +35.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.08% | 0.41% | +34.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.08% | 0.41% | +34.67% |
BCCC vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCCC vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison
BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 64.45%, more than CSHP's 3.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF | 64.45% | 29.55% | 0.00% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 3.91% | 5.39% | 1.96% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BCCC and CSHP have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BCCC has higher volatility (10.69%) compared to CSHP (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.63% vs CSHP's -0.08%.
On 1-year performance, CSHP leads with 3.96% vs -27.47% for BCCC. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CSHP has performed better with a 3.96% return vs -27.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BCCC.
BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 64.45%, compared with 3.91% for CSHP.
BCCC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.20% for CSHP.
CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.22 vs -0.78), 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.
Find the right allocation for BCCC and CSHP
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer