METV vs. IBLC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

METV (Roundhill Ball Metaverse ETF) and IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - METV is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Ball Metaverse Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IBLC is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the ICE FactSet Global Blockchain Technologies Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, METV returned 23.94%/yr vs 48.31%/yr for IBLC. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. METV charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBLC.

Performance

METV vs. IBLC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, METV achieves a 1.54% return, which is significantly lower than IBLC's 32.34% return.

METV

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 5.65%
• YTD: 1.54%
• 6M: -2.08%
• 1Y: 20.08%
• 3Y*: 23.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBLC

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

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

METV vs. IBLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
METV Roundhill Ball Metaverse ETF	1.54%	30.83%	24.93%	60.57%	-24.12%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	32.34%	27.05%	18.58%	201.47%	-57.76%

Correlation

The correlation between METV and IBLC is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2022	0.74

The correlation between METV and IBLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

METV vs. IBLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	METV	IBLC
Technology	50.4%	30.7%
Communication Services	38.1%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	0.1%
Financial Services	3.3%	66.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

METV vs. IBLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

METV

METV Risk / Return Rank: 21
METV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
METV Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
METV Omega Ratio Rank: 23
METV Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
METV Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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

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.

METV vs. IBLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill Ball Metaverse ETF (METV) and iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC). 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.

	METV	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	1.34	-0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	1.92	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.23	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	1.64	-0.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.64	3.26	-1.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

METV vs. IBLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current METV Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the IBLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of METV and IBLC, 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

	METV	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84	1.34	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	0.40	-0.23

Drawdowns

METV vs. IBLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum METV drawdown since its inception was -59.64%, roughly equal to the maximum IBLC drawdown of -62.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for METV and IBLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	METV	IBLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.64%	-62.54%	+2.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.27%	-44.94%	+16.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.27%	-51.68%	+23.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.18%	-12.99%	+2.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.00%	-25.89%	-0.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.29%	22.56%	-10.27%

Volatility

METV vs. IBLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Roundhill Ball Metaverse ETF (METV) is 5.70%, while iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) has a volatility of 14.67%. This indicates that METV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	METV	IBLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.70%	14.67%	-8.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.67%	40.76%	-23.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.88%	54.94%	-31.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.96%	64.49%	-34.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.96%	64.49%	-34.53%

METV vs. IBLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

METV has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IBLC's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

METV vs. IBLC - Dividend Comparison

METV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.18%, less than IBLC's 4.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.77%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%
METV Roundhill Ball Metaverse ETF	0.18%	0.18%	0.00%	0.17%	0.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both METV and IBLC in my portfolio?

METV and IBLC have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, METV or IBLC?

IBLC has higher volatility (14.67%) compared to METV (5.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, METV dropped -59.64% vs IBLC's -62.54%.

Which ETF is better, METV or IBLC?

On 3-year performance, IBLC leads with 48.31% vs 23.94% for METV. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, METV has been the lower-risk option at 5.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, METV or IBLC?

Over the 3-year period, IBLC has performed better with a 48.31% return vs 23.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, METV or IBLC?

IBLC is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for METV.

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

IBLC has the higher dividend yield at 4.77%, compared with 0.18% for METV.

What is the main difference between METV and IBLC?

METV is categorized as Technology Equities, while IBLC is Cryptocurrency. METV tracks Ball Metaverse Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IBLC tracks ICE FactSet Global Blockchain Technologies Index. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for METV and 0.47% for IBLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 0.84), 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.