BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BCHN.L (Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain Ucits ETF) and ECAR.L (iShares Electric Vehicles and Driving Technology UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both Technology Equities funds tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, from Invesco and iShares respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BCHN.L returned 11.36%/yr vs 12.46%/yr for ECAR.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BCHN.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ECAR.L.

Performance

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain Ucits ETF (BCHN.L) and iShares Electric Vehicles and Driving Technology UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ECAR.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCHN.L achieves a 25.82% return, which is significantly lower than ECAR.L's 57.85% return.

BCHN.L

• 1D: -2.12%
• 1M: 10.57%
• YTD: 25.82%
• 6M: 16.47%
• 1Y: 61.23%
• 3Y*: 45.96%
• 5Y*: 11.36%
• 10Y*: —

ECAR.L

• 1D: -1.93%
• 1M: 20.58%
• YTD: 57.85%
• 6M: 59.03%
• 1Y: 91.94%
• 3Y*: 27.13%
• 5Y*: 12.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BCHN.L Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain Ucits ETF	25.82%	45.50%	17.30%	66.38%	-52.02%	23.97%	96.43%	14.95%
ECAR.L iShares Electric Vehicles and Driving Technology UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	57.85%	24.33%	-0.93%	27.09%	-27.28%	16.16%	33.68%	8.09%

Correlation

The correlation between BCHN.L and ECAR.L is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 12, 2019	0.67

The correlation between BCHN.L and ECAR.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCHN.L	ECAR.L
Financial Services	53.0%	-
Technology	32.8%	66.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	28.6%
Communication Services	4.1%	-
Utilities	1.8%	-
Industrials	0.7%	4.8%
Basic Materials	-	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCHN.L

BCHN.L Risk / Return Rank: 39
BCHN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
BCHN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
BCHN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 39
BCHN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
BCHN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 29

ECAR.L

ECAR.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
ECAR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ECAR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
ECAR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 89
ECAR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ECAR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain Ucits ETF (BCHN.L) and iShares Electric Vehicles and Driving Technology UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ECAR.L). 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.

	BCHN.L	ECAR.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	3.53	-2.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	4.60	-2.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.55	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.93	7.02	-5.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.05	21.74	-17.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCHN.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is lower than the ECAR.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCHN.L and ECAR.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BCHN.L	ECAR.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.50	3.53	-2.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.50	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.66	0.62	+0.04

Drawdowns

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCHN.L drawdown since its inception was -61.69%, which is greater than ECAR.L's maximum drawdown of -42.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCHN.L and ECAR.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCHN.L	ECAR.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.69%	-42.77%	-18.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.54%	-13.03%	-18.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.39%	-29.34%	-7.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.11%	-36.21%	-24.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.60%	-1.93%	-2.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.68%	-11.56%	-12.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.09%	4.21%	+10.88%

Volatility

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Elwood Global Blockchain Ucits ETF (BCHN.L) is 11.58%, while iShares Electric Vehicles and Driving Technology UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ECAR.L) has a volatility of 12.68%. This indicates that BCHN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ECAR.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCHN.L	ECAR.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.58%	12.68%	-1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.89%	21.36%	+5.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.59%	25.91%	+14.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.82%	24.72%	+14.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.68%	25.69%	+10.99%

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCHN.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ECAR.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCHN.L vs. ECAR.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BCHN.L nor ECAR.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCHN.L and ECAR.L in my portfolio?

BCHN.L and ECAR.L have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BCHN.L or ECAR.L?

On fees, ECAR.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCHN.L or ECAR.L?

ECAR.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BCHN.L.

What is the main difference between BCHN.L and ECAR.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for BCHN.L and 0.40% for ECAR.L.