BOLD vs. IBIT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BOLD (Boundless Bio, Inc) is a stock, while IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) is Cryptocurrency fund tracking the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant. Over the past year, BOLD returned 26.55% vs -35.90% for IBIT. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

BOLD vs. IBIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Boundless Bio, Inc (BOLD) and iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BOLD achieves a 19.17% return, which is significantly higher than IBIT's -23.36% return.

BOLD

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: -8.92%
• YTD: 19.17%
• 6M: 31.19%
• 1Y: 26.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBIT

• 1D: -6.03%
• 1M: -14.44%
• YTD: -23.36%
• 6M: -26.36%
• 1Y: -35.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BOLD vs. IBIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BOLD Boundless Bio, Inc	19.17%	-58.62%	-79.65%
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF	-23.36%	-6.41%	31.08%

Correlation

The correlation between BOLD and IBIT is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024	0.21

Return for Risk

BOLD vs. IBIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BOLD

BOLD Risk / Return Rank: 58
BOLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
BOLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
BOLD Omega Ratio Rank: 56
BOLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BOLD Martin Ratio Rank: 58

IBIT

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

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.

BOLD vs. IBIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Boundless Bio, Inc (BOLD) 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.

	BOLD	IBIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.50	-0.83	+1.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	-1.09	+2.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	0.88	+0.27
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.98	-0.73	+1.71
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.87	-1.27	+3.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BOLD vs. IBIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BOLD Sharpe Ratio is 0.50, which is higher than the IBIT Sharpe Ratio of -0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BOLD and IBIT, 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

	BOLD	IBIT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50	-0.83	+1.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.85	0.32	-1.17

Drawdowns

BOLD vs. IBIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BOLD drawdown since its inception was -92.91%, which is greater than IBIT's maximum drawdown of -49.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BOLD and IBIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BOLD	IBIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.91%	-49.36%	-43.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.46%	-49.36%	+18.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-89.96%	-46.63%	-43.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-80.51%	-15.96%	-64.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.09%	28.28%	-12.19%

Volatility

BOLD vs. IBIT - Volatility Comparison

Boundless Bio, Inc (BOLD) has a higher volatility of 13.34% compared to iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) at 9.76%. This indicates that BOLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BOLD	IBIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.34%	9.76%	+3.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.74%	34.85%	+5.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	53.63%	43.65%	+9.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	77.27%	50.20%	+27.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	77.27%	50.20%	+27.07%

Dividends

BOLD vs. IBIT - Dividend Comparison

Neither BOLD nor IBIT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BOLD and IBIT in my portfolio?

BOLD and IBIT have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BOLD or IBIT?

BOLD has higher volatility (13.34%) compared to IBIT (9.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BOLD dropped -92.91% vs IBIT's -49.36%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BOLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.50 vs -0.82), 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.