FALN vs. IBIT

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) and IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index, while IBIT is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FALN returned 7.39% vs -46.35% for IBIT. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

FALN vs. IBIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) 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, FALN achieves a 2.62% return, which is significantly higher than IBIT's -26.71% return.

FALN

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.34%
• 6M: 1.76%
• YTD: 2.62%
• 1Y: 7.39%
• 3Y*: 8.74%
• 5Y*: 3.61%
• 10Y*: 6.24%

IBIT

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: -2.10%
• 6M: -32.61%
• YTD: -26.71%
• 1Y: -46.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FALN vs. IBIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	2.62%	8.92%	7.07%
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF	-26.71%	-6.41%	89.87%

Correlation

The correlation between FALN and IBIT is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.33

Return for Risk

FALN vs. IBIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 58
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 65
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 56

IBIT

IBIT Risk / Return Rank: 1
IBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
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.

FALN vs. IBIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) 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.

	FALN	IBIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	-1.05	+2.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.37	-1.59	+3.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	0.82	+0.49
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	-0.87	+2.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.82	-1.40	+9.22

FALN vs. IBIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FALN Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is higher than the IBIT Sharpe Ratio of -1.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FALN 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.

Drawdowns

FALN vs. IBIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FALN drawdown since its inception was -29.22%, smaller than the maximum IBIT drawdown of -53.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FALN and IBIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FALN	IBIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.22%	-53.30%	+24.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.96%	-53.30%	+49.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.78%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-48.95%	+48.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.29%	-17.71%	+14.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	33.14%	-32.19%

Volatility

FALN vs. IBIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) is 0.81%, while iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) has a volatility of 10.89%. This indicates that FALN 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.

Volatility by Period

	FALN	IBIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.81%	10.89%	-10.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.75%	34.83%	-31.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.55%	44.38%	-39.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.33%	49.92%	-42.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.86%	49.92%	-41.06%

FALN vs. IBIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FALN and IBIT have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FALN vs. IBIT - Dividend Comparison

FALN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.46%, while IBIT has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.46%	6.31%	6.24%	5.37%	5.08%	3.40%	5.14%	5.35%	5.97%	6.98%	3.55%
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FALN and IBIT in my portfolio?

FALN and IBIT have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FALN or IBIT?

IBIT has higher volatility (10.89%) compared to FALN (0.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FALN dropped -29.22% vs IBIT's -53.30%.

Which ETF is better, FALN or IBIT?

On 1-year performance, FALN leads with 7.39% vs -46.35% for IBIT. Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. On volatility, FALN has been the lower-risk option at 0.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FALN or IBIT?

Over the 1-year period, FALN has performed better with a 7.39% return vs -46.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FALN or IBIT?

FALN and IBIT have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FALN or IBIT?

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.46%, compared with 0.00% for IBIT.

What is the main difference between FALN and IBIT?

FALN is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while IBIT is Cryptocurrency. FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index, while IBIT tracks CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FALN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.63 vs -1.05), 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.