GLIV vs. ETCG
GLIV (Grayscale Livepeer Trust (LPT)) and ETCG (Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETC)) are both Cryptocurrency funds from Grayscale. GLIV is actively managed, while ETCG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GLIV returned -32.91%/yr vs -19.29%/yr for ETCG. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
GLIV vs. ETCG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLIV achieves a -34.03% return, which is significantly higher than ETCG's -38.79% return.
GLIV
- 1D
- 1.29%
- 1M
- -19.90%
- YTD
- -34.03%
- 6M
- -34.31%
- 1Y
- -73.83%
- 3Y*
- -32.91%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ETCG
- 1D
- -3.83%
- 1M
- -8.63%
- YTD
- -38.79%
- 6M
- -39.88%
- 1Y
- -51.29%
- 3Y*
- -19.29%
- 5Y*
- -37.15%
- 10Y*
- —
GLIV vs. ETCG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLIV Grayscale Livepeer Trust (LPT) | -34.03% | -84.65% | -22.50% | 723.05% | -81.31% |
ETCG Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETC) | -38.79% | -39.78% | -9.57% | 289.22% | -67.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLIV and ETCG is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 27, 2022 | 0.28 |
The correlation between GLIV and ETCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (all time) to 0.44 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
GLIV vs. ETCG — Risk / Return Rank
GLIV
ETCG
GLIV vs. ETCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Grayscale Livepeer Trust (LPT) (GLIV) and Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETC) (ETCG). 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.
| GLIV | ETCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.92 | 0.86 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.88 | -0.75 | -0.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.21 | -1.10 | -0.12 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GLIV vs. ETCG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLIV drawdown since its inception was -97.65%, roughly equal to the maximum ETCG drawdown of -96.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLIV and ETCG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLIV | ETCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -97.65% | -96.59% | -1.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -84.40% | -68.71% | -15.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -97.65% | -79.59% | -18.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -92.70% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -97.47% | -95.57% | -1.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -71.81% | -82.73% | +10.92% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 60.92% | 46.80% | +14.12% |
Volatility
GLIV vs. ETCG - Volatility Comparison
Grayscale Livepeer Trust (LPT) (GLIV) has a higher volatility of 24.08% compared to Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETC) (ETCG) at 12.88%. This indicates that GLIV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ETCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLIV | ETCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 24.08% | 12.88% | +11.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 71.59% | 36.86% | +34.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 124.52% | 62.36% | +62.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 174.97% | 92.24% | +82.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 174.97% | 114.90% | +60.07% |
Dividends
GLIV vs. ETCG - Dividend Comparison
Neither GLIV nor ETCG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
GLIV and ETCG have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLIV has higher volatility (24.08%) compared to ETCG (12.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLIV dropped -97.65% vs ETCG's -96.59%.
On 3-year performance, ETCG leads with -19.29% vs -32.91% for GLIV. On volatility, ETCG has been the lower-risk option at 12.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, ETCG has performed better with a -19.29% return vs -32.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLIV and ETCG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
GLIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.60 vs -0.83), 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.
Find the right allocation for GLIV and ETCG
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