BITO vs. IBLC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BITO (ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF) and IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds. BITO is actively managed, while IBLC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BITO returned 26.82%/yr vs 50.11%/yr for IBLC. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BITO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBLC.

Performance

BITO vs. IBLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO) and iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BITO achieves a -28.44% return, which is significantly lower than IBLC's 31.00% return.

BITO

• 1D: -2.81%
• 1M: -22.52%
• YTD: -28.44%
• 6M: -32.46%
• 1Y: -41.98%
• 3Y*: 26.82%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBLC

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 8.35%
• YTD: 31.00%
• 6M: 11.45%
• 1Y: 64.83%
• 3Y*: 50.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BITO vs. IBLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BITO ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF	-28.44%	-11.19%	104.45%	137.33%	-56.95%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	31.00%	27.05%	18.58%	201.47%	-57.76%

Correlation

The correlation between BITO and IBLC is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2022	0.71

The correlation between BITO and IBLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

BITO vs. IBLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BITO	IBLC
Financial Services	68.5%	66.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	30.7%
Utilities	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

BITO vs. IBLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BITO

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

IBLC

IBLC Risk / Return Rank: 30
IBLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
IBLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
IBLC Omega Ratio Rank: 32
IBLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
IBLC Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

BITO vs. IBLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO) and iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC). 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.

	BITO	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	1.19	-2.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.39	1.78	-3.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.84	1.21	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.83	1.45	-2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.44	2.88	-4.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BITO vs. IBLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BITO Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the IBLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BITO and IBLC, 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

	BITO	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.97	1.19	-2.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.10	0.39	-0.49

Drawdowns

BITO vs. IBLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BITO drawdown since its inception was -77.86%, which is greater than IBLC's maximum drawdown of -62.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BITO and IBLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BITO	IBLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-77.86%	-62.54%	-15.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-50.64%	-44.94%	-5.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.64%	-51.68%	+1.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-50.64%	-13.87%	-36.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.75%	-25.88%	-10.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	29.27%	22.58%	+6.69%

Volatility

BITO vs. IBLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO) is 9.03%, while iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) has a volatility of 14.39%. This indicates that BITO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BITO	IBLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.03%	14.39%	-5.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.71%	40.72%	-7.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.61%	54.80%	-11.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	55.10%	64.46%	-9.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	55.10%	64.46%	-9.36%

BITO vs. IBLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BITO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IBLC's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

BITO vs. IBLC - Dividend Comparison

BITO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 69.59%, more than IBLC's 4.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BITO ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF	69.59%	78.29%	61.59%	15.14%	0.00%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.82%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BITO and IBLC in my portfolio?

BITO and IBLC have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BITO or IBLC?

IBLC has higher volatility (14.39%) compared to BITO (9.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BITO dropped -77.86% vs IBLC's -62.54%.

Which ETF is better, BITO or IBLC?

On 3-year performance, IBLC leads with 50.11% vs 26.82% for BITO. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BITO has been the lower-risk option at 9.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BITO or IBLC?

Over the 3-year period, IBLC has performed better with a 50.11% return vs 26.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BITO or IBLC?

IBLC is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BITO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BITO or IBLC?

BITO has the higher dividend yield at 69.59%, compared with 4.82% for IBLC.

What is the main difference between BITO and IBLC?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BITO and 0.47% for IBLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 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.