Generated August 23, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
BITB and FBTC are both spot bitcoin ETFs that launched on the same day and hold bitcoin directly in custody. The funds are functionally identical in strategy—each tracks bitcoin's price movement with no distributions—but differ meaningfully in scale, fees, and issuer. FBTC has attracted substantially larger assets under management, while BITB charges a slightly lower expense ratio.
How they differ
Both ETFs provide direct bitcoin exposure with identical distribution profiles (no yield) and nearly matched beta readings around 1.88. The primary distinction is size: FBTC holds $11.1B in assets versus BITB's $2.37B, giving Fidelity's fund roughly 4.7 times more capital. On fees, BITB carries a 0.20% expense ratio while FBTC charges 0.25%—a small gap, but on a $10,000 position that's $5 annually in difference. Both launched January 10, 2024, so there's no track record separation; the price difference ($67.02 for FBTC versus $41.82 for BITB) simply reflects different share structures and inception timing relative to bitcoin's price movement.
Who each is best for
BITB: Fits investors prioritizing the lowest absolute fee drag, where the 5 basis-point fee advantage compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade horizon and the smaller fund size poses no practical liquidity concern.
FBTC: Fits investors who value scale and institutional credibility, where Fidelity's significantly larger asset base and brand recognition may suggest deeper operational infrastructure and lower counterparty concentration risk.
Key risks to know
- Bitcoin volatility and price risk. Both ETFs move in lockstep with bitcoin's price; the 1.88 beta reflects bitcoin's historical volatility relative to broader equity markets. A severe crypto market correction would erode the value of either holding proportionally.
- Custody and operational risk. Both funds rely on third-party custody arrangements to safeguard bitcoin holdings. Any compromise of custody infrastructure or operational failure at either Bitwise or Fidelity could affect asset recovery and fund continuity.
- Regulatory and legal risk for bitcoin itself. Changes in U.S. or international bitcoin regulation—whether classification, tax treatment, or outright restrictions—could impair the funds' ability to operate or hold bitcoin.
- Fund size and AUM concentration. FBTC's larger asset base may provide operational stability, but BITB's smaller footprint creates a different dependency: sustained outflows or investor indifference could eventually pressure Bitwise's willingness to maintain the fund.
Bottom line
If you prioritize the lowest fee and don't require institutional-scale AUM, BITB's 0.20% expense ratio stands out. If you value the operational backbone and market confidence of a major financial institution managing a larger fund, FBTC's scale with Fidelity may feel more durable. Either way, both offer direct bitcoin exposure without distributions or leverage; the choice hinges on fee sensitivity and issuer preference rather than fundamentally different exposure. Past performance in bitcoin does not guarantee future results.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
