IBLC vs. BCDF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) and BCDF (Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds. IBLC is passively managed, while BCDF is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBLC returned 48.31%/yr vs 14.97%/yr for BCDF. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBLC charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for BCDF.

Performance

IBLC vs. BCDF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBLC achieves a 32.34% return, which is significantly higher than BCDF's 3.23% return.

IBLC

• 1D: -3.00%
• 1M: 13.52%
• YTD: 32.34%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 73.27%
• 3Y*: 48.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BCDF

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -4.70%
• YTD: 3.23%
• 6M: 4.02%
• 1Y: 6.26%
• 3Y*: 14.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBLC vs. BCDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	32.34%	27.05%	18.58%	201.47%	-45.35%
BCDF Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF	3.23%	11.63%	14.87%	24.99%	-22.71%

Correlation

The correlation between IBLC and BCDF is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 3, 2022	0.64

The correlation between IBLC and BCDF shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.64 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IBLC vs. BCDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBLC	BCDF
Financial Services	66.6%	80.2%
Technology	30.7%	9.7%
Communication Services	2.5%	1.4%
Utilities	0.2%	4.7%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	3.5%
Healthcare	-	0.0%
Industrials	-	0.4%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

IBLC vs. BCDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBLC

IBLC Risk / Return Rank: 33
IBLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
IBLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
IBLC Omega Ratio Rank: 33
IBLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
IBLC Martin Ratio Rank: 24

BCDF

BCDF Risk / Return Rank: 16
BCDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
BCDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
BCDF Omega Ratio Rank: 15
BCDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
BCDF Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

IBLC vs. BCDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) and Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF (BCDF). 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.

	IBLC	BCDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	0.43	+0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	0.69	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.08	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	0.82	+0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.26	1.85	+1.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBLC vs. BCDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is higher than the BCDF Sharpe Ratio of 0.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBLC and BCDF, 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

	IBLC	BCDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	0.43	+0.92
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.39	+0.01

Drawdowns

IBLC vs. BCDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBLC drawdown since its inception was -62.54%, which is greater than BCDF's maximum drawdown of -27.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBLC and BCDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBLC	BCDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.54%	-27.70%	-34.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.94%	-7.63%	-37.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.68%	-13.46%	-38.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.99%	-7.63%	-5.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.89%	-9.83%	-16.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.56%	3.39%	+19.17%

Volatility

IBLC vs. BCDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) has a higher volatility of 14.67% compared to Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF (BCDF) at 5.17%. This indicates that IBLC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BCDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBLC	BCDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.67%	5.17%	+9.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.76%	11.03%	+29.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.94%	14.76%	+40.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.49%	16.94%	+47.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	64.49%	16.94%	+47.55%

IBLC vs. BCDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBLC has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than BCDF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBLC vs. BCDF - Dividend Comparison

IBLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.77%, more than BCDF's 2.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BCDF Horizon Kinetics Blockchain Development ETF	2.45%	2.53%	1.63%	0.69%	0.38%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.77%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBLC and BCDF in my portfolio?

IBLC and BCDF have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBLC or BCDF?

IBLC has higher volatility (14.67%) compared to BCDF (5.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBLC dropped -62.54% vs BCDF's -27.70%.

Which ETF is better, IBLC or BCDF?

On 3-year performance, IBLC leads with 48.31% vs 14.97% for BCDF. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BCDF has been the lower-risk option at 5.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBLC or BCDF?

Over the 3-year period, IBLC has performed better with a 48.31% return vs 14.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBLC or BCDF?

IBLC is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BCDF.

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

IBLC has the higher dividend yield at 4.77%, compared with 2.45% for BCDF.

What is the main difference between IBLC and BCDF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Horizon. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBLC and 0.85% for BCDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 0.43), 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.