BCCC vs. IBIT
BCCC (Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF) and IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds. BCCC is actively managed, while IBIT is passively managed. Over the past year, BCCC returned -32.74% vs -43.08% for IBIT. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. BCCC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IBIT.
Performance
BCCC vs. IBIT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BCCC achieves a -20.07% return, which is significantly higher than IBIT's -26.00% return.
BCCC
- 1D
- 0.59%
- 1M
- 3.39%
- 6M
- -5.62%
- YTD
- -20.07%
- 1Y
- -32.74%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -22.42%
IBIT
- 1D
- 0.96%
- 1M
- 1.72%
- 6M
- -11.62%
- YTD
- -26.00%
- 1Y
- -43.08%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 11.26%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $121.51K | $102.42K | $162.10K | |
| $1.32B | $1.30B | $1.64B |
BCCC vs. IBIT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF | -20.07% | -7.02% |
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF | -26.00% | -17.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCCC and IBIT is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.98 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025 | 0.98 |
The correlation between BCCC and IBIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. IBIT — Risk / Return Rank
BCCC
IBIT
BCCC vs. IBIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) and iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT). 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 | IBIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.79 | -0.81 | +0.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.24 | -1.23 | -0.01 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCCC vs. IBIT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCCC drawdown since its inception was -41.79%, smaller than the maximum IBIT drawdown of -53.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCCC and IBIT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCCC | IBIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.79% | -53.30% | +11.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -41.79% | -53.30% | +11.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -36.12% | -48.46% | +12.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.92% | -18.39% | -1.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 26.36% | 35.07% | -8.71% |
Volatility
BCCC vs. IBIT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF (BCCC) is 5.80%, while iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) has a volatility of 8.34%. This indicates that BCCC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCCC | IBIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.80% | 8.34% | -2.54% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.64% | 33.03% | -5.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.69% | 44.38% | -8.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 34.08% | 49.50% | -15.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.08% | 49.50% | -15.42% |
BCCC vs. IBIT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCCC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIT's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCCC vs. IBIT - Dividend Comparison
BCCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 57.41%, while IBIT has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BCCC Global X Bitcoin Covered Call ETF | 57.41% | 29.55% |
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.98, BCCC and IBIT 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.
IBIT has higher volatility (8.34%) compared to BCCC (5.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCCC dropped -41.79% vs IBIT's -53.30%.
On 1-year performance, BCCC leads with -32.74% vs -43.08% for IBIT. On fees, IBIT is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BCCC has been the lower-risk option at 5.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BCCC has performed better with a -32.74% return vs -43.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIT is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BCCC.
BCCC has the higher dividend yield at 57.41%, compared with 0.00% for IBIT.
They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BCCC and 0.25% for IBIT.
BCCC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.92 vs -0.97), 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 IBIT
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