WGMI vs. IBLC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WGMI (Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF) and IBLC (iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF) are both Cryptocurrency funds. WGMI is actively managed, while IBLC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, WGMI returned 86.17%/yr vs 48.31%/yr for IBLC. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. WGMI charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBLC.

Performance

WGMI vs. IBLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF (WGMI) 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, WGMI achieves a 84.78% return, which is significantly higher than IBLC's 32.34% return.

WGMI

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 40.03%
• YTD: 84.78%
• 6M: 55.52%
• 1Y: 294.61%
• 3Y*: 86.17%
• 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)

WGMI vs. IBLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
WGMI Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF	84.78%	72.47%	23.54%	304.08%	-74.52%
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	32.34%	27.05%	18.58%	201.47%	-57.76%

Correlation

The correlation between WGMI and IBLC is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2022	0.95

The correlation between WGMI and IBLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

WGMI vs. IBLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WGMI	IBLC
Financial Services	51.3%	66.6%
Technology	45.9%	30.7%
Communication Services	1.2%	2.5%
Utilities	1.2%	0.2%
Industrials	0.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

WGMI vs. IBLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

WGMI

WGMI Risk / Return Rank: 79
WGMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
WGMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
WGMI Omega Ratio Rank: 69
WGMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
WGMI Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

WGMI vs. IBLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF (WGMI) 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.

	WGMI	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.91	1.34	+2.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	1.92	+1.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.23	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.83	1.64	+4.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.81	3.26	+8.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WGMI vs. IBLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WGMI Sharpe Ratio is 3.91, which is higher than the IBLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WGMI 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

	WGMI	IBLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.91	1.34	+2.56
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.40	-0.09

Drawdowns

WGMI vs. IBLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WGMI drawdown since its inception was -85.76%, which is greater than IBLC's maximum drawdown of -62.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WGMI and IBLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	WGMI	IBLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-85.76%	-62.54%	-23.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-50.94%	-44.94%	-6.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-62.79%	-51.68%	-11.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.11%	-12.99%	+11.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.90%	-25.89%	-17.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.08%	22.56%	+2.52%

Volatility

WGMI vs. IBLC - Volatility Comparison

Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF (WGMI) has a higher volatility of 20.10% compared to iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF (IBLC) at 14.67%. This indicates that WGMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WGMI	IBLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	20.10%	14.67%	+5.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	55.64%	40.76%	+14.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	76.03%	54.94%	+21.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	81.53%	64.49%	+17.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	81.53%	64.49%	+17.04%

WGMI vs. IBLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

WGMI vs. IBLC - Dividend Comparison

WGMI has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.77%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBLC iShares Blockchain and Tech ETF	4.77%	6.31%	1.60%	1.79%	0.84%
WGMI Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.22%	0.31%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WGMI and IBLC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, WGMI and IBLC 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, WGMI or IBLC?

WGMI has higher volatility (20.10%) compared to IBLC (14.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WGMI dropped -85.76% vs IBLC's -62.54%.

Which ETF is better, WGMI or IBLC?

On 3-year performance, WGMI leads with 86.17% vs 48.31% for IBLC. On fees, IBLC is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBLC has been the lower-risk option at 14.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WGMI or IBLC?

Over the 3-year period, WGMI has performed better with a 86.17% return vs 48.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WGMI or IBLC?

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

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

IBLC has the higher dividend yield at 4.77%, compared with 0.00% for WGMI.

What is the main difference between WGMI and IBLC?

They also come from different issuers: Valkyrie and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for WGMI and 0.47% for IBLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WGMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.91 vs 1.34), 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.