JULZ vs. BITI

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

JULZ (Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF) and BITI (ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JULZ is a Options Trading fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index July, while BITI is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Bloomberg Bitcoin Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, JULZ returned 14.89%/yr vs -31.62%/yr for BITI. At a correlation of -0.39, they often move in opposite directions. JULZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.03%/yr for BITI.

Performance

JULZ vs. BITI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF (JULZ) and ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF (BITI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULZ achieves a 7.91% return, which is significantly lower than BITI's 24.48% return.

JULZ

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: -0.12%
• 6M: 6.69%
• YTD: 7.91%
• 1Y: 16.11%
• 3Y*: 14.89%
• 5Y*: 10.66%
• 10Y*: —

BITI

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 1.49%
• 6M: 35.86%
• YTD: 24.48%
• 1Y: 64.61%
• 3Y*: -31.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JULZ vs. BITI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
JULZ Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF	7.91%	13.23%	18.76%	17.65%	4.98%
BITI ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF	24.48%	-1.76%	-62.60%	-66.17%	3.39%

Correlation

The correlation between JULZ and BITI is -0.48, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2022	-0.39

The correlation between JULZ and BITI shifts across timeframes, from -0.48 (1 year) to -0.38 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

JULZ vs. BITI — Risk / Return Rank

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

JULZ

JULZ Risk / Return Rank: 52
JULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
JULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
JULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 52
JULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
JULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 56

BITI

BITI Risk / Return Rank: 52
BITI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
BITI Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
BITI Omega Ratio Rank: 46
BITI Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
BITI Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

JULZ vs. BITI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF (JULZ) and ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF (BITI). 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.

	JULZ	BITI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.47	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	2.04	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.25	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.90	2.57	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.79	6.38	+1.41

JULZ vs. BITI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the BITI Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULZ and BITI, 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

JULZ vs. BITI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULZ drawdown since its inception was -14.71%, smaller than the maximum BITI drawdown of -92.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULZ and BITI.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULZ	BITI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.71%	-92.16%	+77.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.53%	-25.28%	+16.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.71%	-84.63%	+69.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.33%	-86.41%	+85.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.95%	-68.40%	+65.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	10.16%	-8.09%

Volatility

JULZ vs. BITI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF (JULZ) is 3.27%, while ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF (BITI) has a volatility of 10.76%. This indicates that JULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BITI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULZ	BITI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	10.76%	-7.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	34.28%	-25.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.90%	44.15%	-33.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.33%	52.24%	-39.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.34%	52.24%	-39.90%

JULZ vs. BITI - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULZ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BITI's 1.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULZ vs. BITI - Dividend Comparison

JULZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.09%, less than BITI's 15.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BITI ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF	15.62%	1.60%	3.91%	3.33%	0.06%
JULZ Trueshares Structured Outcome (July) ETF	11.09%	11.96%	3.30%	3.59%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULZ and BITI in my portfolio?

JULZ and BITI have a correlation of -0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULZ or BITI?

BITI has higher volatility (10.76%) compared to JULZ (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULZ dropped -14.71% vs BITI's -92.16%.

Which ETF is better, JULZ or BITI?

On 3-year performance, JULZ leads with 14.89% vs -31.62% for BITI. On fees, JULZ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, JULZ has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULZ or BITI?

Over the 3-year period, JULZ has performed better with a 14.89% return vs -31.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULZ or BITI?

JULZ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.03% for BITI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULZ or BITI?

BITI has the higher dividend yield at 15.62%, compared with 11.09% for JULZ.

What is the main difference between JULZ and BITI?

JULZ is categorized as Options Trading, while BITI is Cryptocurrency. JULZ tracks Cboe S&P 500 Buffer Protect Index July, while BITI tracks Bloomberg Bitcoin Index. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for JULZ and 1.03% for BITI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 1.47), 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.