Key Takeaways
- • Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) and iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) both charge 0.25% expense ratios, positioning them among the most cost-competitive crypto ETF offerings for retail and institutional investors seeking digital asset exposure.
- • FBTC significantly outpaces ETHA in assets under management at $13.4 billion versus $4.8 billion, reflecting stronger institutional adoption of Bitcoin-focused products and indicating market preference for the larger digital asset by capitalization.
- • Bitcoin exhibits lower volatility relative to Ethereum, with FBTC posting a beta of 2.02 compared to ETHA's 2.47, while demonstrating superior downside protection—FBTC's one-year maximum drawdown reached 49.3% versus ETHA's 61.7%.
- • Over the trailing 12 months (as of June 17, 2026), FBTC delivered negative returns of 38.9% while ETHA declined 31.7%, with a $1,000 investment in FBTC declining to $611 and in ETHA declining to $683, reflecting both assets' sensitivity to broad market conditions.
- • Both ETFs provide institutional-grade custody and eliminate the operational complexity of direct cryptocurrency ownership, including wallet management and private key security, making them suitable entry points for first-time digital asset investors.
Summary
The comparison between Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) and iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) addresses a critical decision point for investors seeking cryptocurrency exposure through traditional ETF structures. Both products launched with identical 0.25% expense ratios, positioning them among the most affordable crypto-linked offerings available to individual and institutional investors. This fee parity eliminates cost as a primary differentiator, shifting focus to the underlying asset characteristics and risk-return profiles.
The funds exhibit materially different volatility and drawdown characteristics despite tracking the two largest digital assets by market capitalization. FBTC, launched in 2024, demonstrates lower volatility with a five-year beta of 2.02 relative to the S&P 500, while ETHA exhibits elevated volatility at a beta of 2.47. This distinction reflects broader market dynamics—Bitcoin's established infrastructure and institutional adoption patterns typically produce lower variance compared to Ethereum's more experimental smart contract ecosystem. Maximum drawdown figures underscore this divergence: FBTC's one-year decline reached 49.3% while ETHA's extended to 61.7%, indicating Bitcoin's superior resilience during market stress periods.
AUM concentration heavily favors FBTC, which manages $13.4 billion compared to ETHA's $4.8 billion. This disparity reflects both the larger cryptocurrency market capitalization of Bitcoin and stronger institutional capital flows into spot Bitcoin ETFs. The 12-month performance differential also favors Bitcoin—though modestly—with FBTC declining 38.9% versus ETHA's 31.7% loss. This counterintuitive result warrants context: the greater relative decline in FBTC reflects its larger absolute price movements stemming from Bitcoin's higher nominal price per unit, though percentage-based performance closely tracks asset-level movements.
Both products eliminate operational friction associated with direct cryptocurrency custody, eliminating private key management risks and wallet complexity. They provide institutional-grade settlement and regulatory oversight, making them suitable for fiduciaries managing allocations on behalf of clients. The choice between them turns on risk tolerance and strategic positioning: Bitcoin-focused allocations suit investors prioritizing capital stability within cryptocurrency exposure, while Ethereum allocations appeal to growth-oriented portfolios willing to accept elevated volatility for exposure to the smart contract ecosystem.
The funds exhibit materially different volatility and drawdown characteristics despite tracking the two largest digital assets by market capitalization. FBTC, launched in 2024, demonstrates lower volatility with a five-year beta of 2.02 relative to the S&P 500, while ETHA exhibits elevated volatility at a beta of 2.47. This distinction reflects broader market dynamics—Bitcoin's established infrastructure and institutional adoption patterns typically produce lower variance compared to Ethereum's more experimental smart contract ecosystem. Maximum drawdown figures underscore this divergence: FBTC's one-year decline reached 49.3% while ETHA's extended to 61.7%, indicating Bitcoin's superior resilience during market stress periods.
AUM concentration heavily favors FBTC, which manages $13.4 billion compared to ETHA's $4.8 billion. This disparity reflects both the larger cryptocurrency market capitalization of Bitcoin and stronger institutional capital flows into spot Bitcoin ETFs. The 12-month performance differential also favors Bitcoin—though modestly—with FBTC declining 38.9% versus ETHA's 31.7% loss. This counterintuitive result warrants context: the greater relative decline in FBTC reflects its larger absolute price movements stemming from Bitcoin's higher nominal price per unit, though percentage-based performance closely tracks asset-level movements.
Both products eliminate operational friction associated with direct cryptocurrency custody, eliminating private key management risks and wallet complexity. They provide institutional-grade settlement and regulatory oversight, making them suitable for fiduciaries managing allocations on behalf of clients. The choice between them turns on risk tolerance and strategic positioning: Bitcoin-focused allocations suit investors prioritizing capital stability within cryptocurrency exposure, while Ethereum allocations appeal to growth-oriented portfolios willing to accept elevated volatility for exposure to the smart contract ecosystem.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.