IMCG vs. IBIT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMCG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth 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, IMCG returned 23.35% vs -38.74% for IBIT. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IMCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IBIT.

Performance

IMCG vs. IBIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) 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, IMCG achieves a 20.05% return, which is significantly higher than IBIT's -25.48% return.

IMCG

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 8.33%
• YTD: 20.05%
• 6M: 18.28%
• 1Y: 23.35%
• 3Y*: 18.91%
• 5Y*: 8.62%
• 10Y*: 14.46%

IBIT

• 1D: -2.76%
• 1M: -18.50%
• YTD: -25.48%
• 6M: -29.84%
• 1Y: -38.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IMCG vs. IBIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	20.05%	6.55%	19.80%
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF	-25.48%	-6.41%	99.21%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and IBIT is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.43

Return for Risk

IMCG vs. IBIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 44
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

IBIT

IBIT Risk / Return Rank: 2
IBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
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.

IMCG vs. IBIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) 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.

	IMCG	IBIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	-0.89	+2.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	-1.23	+3.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	0.86	+0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.31	-0.79	+3.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.97	-1.36	+10.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMCG vs. IBIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is higher than the IBIT Sharpe Ratio of -0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IMCG	IBIT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.51	-0.89	+2.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.30	+0.24

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. IBIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, which is greater than IBIT's maximum drawdown of -49.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and IBIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCG	IBIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.96%	-49.36%	-9.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.17%	-49.36%	+39.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.08%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-48.10%	+47.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-16.02%	+6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	28.44%	-25.83%

Volatility

IMCG vs. IBIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) is 4.65%, while iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that IMCG 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

	IMCG	IBIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	9.50%	-4.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.53%	34.44%	-21.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.53%	43.73%	-28.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.17%	50.19%	-30.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.51%	50.19%	-29.68%

IMCG vs. IBIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than IBIT's 0.25% 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

IMCG vs. IBIT - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, while IBIT has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.65%	0.78%	0.78%	0.85%	0.91%	0.41%	0.09%	0.30%	0.35%	0.45%	0.52%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMCG and IBIT in my portfolio?

IMCG and IBIT have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMCG or IBIT?

IBIT has higher volatility (9.50%) compared to IMCG (4.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs IBIT's -49.36%.

Which ETF is better, IMCG or IBIT?

On 1-year performance, IMCG leads with 23.35% vs -38.74% for IBIT. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCG or IBIT?

Over the 1-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 23.35% return vs -38.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCG or IBIT?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IBIT.

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

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.00% for IBIT.

What is the main difference between IMCG and IBIT?

IMCG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while IBIT is Cryptocurrency. IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while IBIT tracks CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.25% for IBIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs -0.89), 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.