IBLC vs. BITS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) and BITS (Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds - IBLC tracks the ICE FactSet Global Blockchain Technologies Index while BITS tracks the NONE. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBLC returned 48.31%/yr vs 49.59%/yr for BITS. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IBLC charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for BITS.

Performance

IBLC vs. BITS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) and Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITS). 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 BITS's 4.17% return.

IBLC

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

BITS

• 1D: -2.94%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: 4.17%
• 6M: -6.53%
• 1Y: 19.33%
• 3Y*: 49.59%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBLC vs. BITS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	32.34%	27.05%	18.58%	201.47%	-57.76%
BITS Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF	4.17%	14.90%	61.84%	212.23%	-64.14%

Correlation

The correlation between IBLC and BITS is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2022	0.92

The correlation between IBLC and BITS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBLC vs. BITS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBLC	BITS
Financial Services	66.6%	72.9%
Technology	30.7%	27.1%
Communication Services	2.5%	-
Utilities	0.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBLC vs. BITS — 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

BITS

BITS Risk / Return Rank: 15
BITS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
BITS Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
BITS Omega Ratio Rank: 16
BITS Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
BITS Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. BITS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) and Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITS). 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	BITS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	0.37	+0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	0.86	+1.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.10	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	0.40	+1.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.26	0.75	+2.50
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. BITS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is higher than the BITS Sharpe Ratio of 0.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBLC and BITS, 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	BITS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	0.37	+0.97
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.02	+0.38

Drawdowns

IBLC vs. BITS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBLC drawdown since its inception was -62.54%, smaller than the maximum BITS drawdown of -83.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBLC and BITS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBLC	BITS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.54%	-83.11%	+20.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-44.94%	-48.38%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.68%	-48.38%	-3.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.99%	-31.42%	+18.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.89%	-42.76%	+16.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.56%	25.68%	-3.12%

Volatility

IBLC vs. BITS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) has a higher volatility of 14.67% compared to Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITS) at 12.83%. This indicates that IBLC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BITS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBLC	BITS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.67%	12.83%	+1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.76%	40.38%	+0.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.94%	52.55%	+2.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.49%	60.91%	+3.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	64.49%	60.91%	+3.58%

IBLC vs. BITS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBLC has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than BITS's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBLC vs. BITS - Dividend Comparison

IBLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.77%, less than BITS's 21.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BITS Global X Blockchain & Bitcoin Strategy ETF	21.88%	22.80%	29.49%	13.69%	0.48%	1.90%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.77%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBLC and BITS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, IBLC and BITS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IBLC or BITS?

IBLC has higher volatility (14.67%) compared to BITS (12.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBLC dropped -62.54% vs BITS's -83.11%.

Which ETF is better, IBLC or BITS?

On 3-year performance, BITS leads with 49.59% vs 48.31% for IBLC. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BITS has been the lower-risk option at 12.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBLC or BITS?

Over the 3-year period, BITS has performed better with a 49.59% return vs 48.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBLC or BITS?

IBLC is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BITS.

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

BITS has the higher dividend yield at 21.88%, compared with 4.77% for IBLC.

What is the main difference between IBLC and BITS?

IBLC tracks ICE FactSet Global Blockchain Technologies Index, while BITS tracks NONE. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBLC and 0.65% for BITS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 0.37), 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.