BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS
BTCN.AS (iShares Bitcoin ETP) and R1GR.AS (iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BTCN.AS is a fund fund actively managed by iShares, while R1GR.AS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index. BTCN.AS is actively managed, while R1GR.AS is passively managed. Over the past year, BTCN.AS returned -39.03% vs 24.34% for R1GR.AS. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BTCN.AS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for R1GR.AS.
Performance
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BTCN.AS achieves a -46.41% return, which is significantly lower than R1GR.AS's 6.45% return.
BTCN.AS
- 1D
- -3.78%
- 1M
- -21.67%
- YTD
- -46.41%
- 6M
- -46.41%
- 1Y
- -39.03%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
R1GR.AS
- 1D
- -0.17%
- 1M
- 3.89%
- YTD
- 6.45%
- 6M
- 6.27%
- 1Y
- 24.34%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BTCN.AS iShares Bitcoin ETP | -46.41% | 35.30% |
R1GR.AS iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF | 6.45% | 26.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between BTCN.AS and R1GR.AS is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2025 | 0.37 |
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
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS — Risk / Return Rank
BTCN.AS
R1GR.AS
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Bitcoin ETP (BTCN.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). 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.
| BTCN.AS | R1GR.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.86 | 1.29 | -0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.80 | 1.59 | -2.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.51 | 5.20 | -6.70 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BTCN.AS | R1GR.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.70 | 1.63 | -2.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.44 | 1.32 | -1.76 |
Drawdowns
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BTCN.AS drawdown since its inception was -49.00%, which is greater than R1GR.AS's maximum drawdown of -23.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTCN.AS and R1GR.AS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BTCN.AS | R1GR.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -49.00% | -23.09% | -25.91% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -49.00% | -15.71% | -33.29% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -48.93% | -1.53% | -47.40% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.27% | -3.34% | -12.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 26.10% | 4.84% | +21.26% |
Volatility
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Volatility Comparison
iShares Bitcoin ETP (BTCN.AS) has a higher volatility of 9.86% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) at 4.13%. This indicates that BTCN.AS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than R1GR.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BTCN.AS | R1GR.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.86% | 4.13% | +5.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 52.18% | 11.33% | +40.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 55.53% | 15.36% | +40.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 53.36% | 18.90% | +34.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 53.36% | 18.90% | +34.46% |
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison
BTCN.AS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than R1GR.AS's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
BTCN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Dividend Comparison
Neither BTCN.AS nor R1GR.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
BTCN.AS and R1GR.AS have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BTCN.AS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BTCN.AS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for R1GR.AS.
Their fees differ too: 0.15% for BTCN.AS and 0.18% for R1GR.AS.
Find the right allocation for BTCN.AS and R1GR.AS
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