BCCC vs. EZPZ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and EZPZ (Franklin Crypto Index ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds. BCCC is actively managed, while EZPZ is passively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -27.47% vs -38.54% for EZPZ. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for EZPZ.

Performance

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -22.13% return, which is significantly higher than EZPZ's -29.72% return.

BCCC

• 1D: 1.83%
• 1M: -13.01%
• YTD: -22.13%
• 6M: -21.74%
• 1Y: -27.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EZPZ

• 1D: 2.07%
• 1M: -15.35%
• YTD: -29.72%
• 6M: -30.75%
• 1Y: -38.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	-22.13%	-7.02%
EZPZ Franklin Crypto Index ETF	-29.72%	-15.32%

Correlation

The correlation between BCCC and EZPZ is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	0.97

The correlation between BCCC and EZPZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BCCC vs. EZPZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCCC

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

EZPZ

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

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. EZPZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and Franklin Crypto Index ETF (EZPZ). 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	EZPZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.78	-0.81	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.95	-1.07	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	0.88	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.66	-0.69	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.21	-1.18	-0.03

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCCC Sharpe Ratio is -0.78, which is comparable to the EZPZ Sharpe Ratio of -0.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCCC and EZPZ, 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. EZPZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.63%, smaller than the maximum EZPZ drawdown of -55.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and EZPZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCCC	EZPZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.63%	-55.78%	+14.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.63%	-55.78%	+14.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.76%	-52.61%	+14.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.79%	-22.78%	+4.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.73%	32.56%	-9.83%

Volatility

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) is 10.69%, while Franklin Crypto Index ETF (EZPZ) has a volatility of 14.06%. This indicates that BCCC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EZPZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCCC	EZPZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.69%	14.06%	-3.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.96%	37.02%	-8.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.36%	47.68%	-12.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.08%	47.85%	-12.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.08%	47.85%	-12.77%

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EZPZ's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCCC vs. EZPZ - Dividend Comparison

BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 64.45%, while EZPZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF	64.45%	29.55%
EZPZ Franklin Crypto Index ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCCC and EZPZ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, BCCC and EZPZ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BCCC or EZPZ?

EZPZ has higher volatility (14.06%) compared to BCCC (10.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.63% vs EZPZ's -55.78%.

Which ETF is better, BCCC or EZPZ?

On 1-year performance, BCCC leads with -27.47% vs -38.54% for EZPZ. On fees, EZPZ is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, BCCC has been the lower-risk option at 10.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCCC or EZPZ?

Over the 1-year period, BCCC has performed better with a -27.47% return vs -38.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCCC or EZPZ?

EZPZ is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BCCC.

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

BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 64.45%, compared with 0.00% for EZPZ.

What is the main difference between BCCC and EZPZ?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.19% for EZPZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BCCC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.78 vs -0.81), 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.