IBIT
Not rated
No published distribution safety rating is available.
ETF Comparison
IBIT vs TKNZ: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?
A head-to-head comparison of iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF and T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.
Updated November 6, 2026
No track record yet. TKNZ launched within the last six months. The forward distribution rate is left blank until a payout is published.
How these figures are calculated: methodology.
Price and total return
Compare the same available dates. Add a ticker or benchmark below; these controls change the chart only. The snapshot and article describe the original comparison.
Interactive history loads here. The snapshot and period returns remain available when chart history cannot be loaded.
Distribution Safety Score
An estimate of distribution reliability, not price or principal safety, a probability, or a guarantee. Score methodology.
TKNZ
Not rated
No published distribution safety rating is available.
Score snapshot as of . Method 1.11.
Side-by-side snapshot
| Metric |  IBIT |  TKNZ |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF | T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF |
| Issuer | iShares | T. Rowe Price |
| Last Close | $42.88 as of November 6, 2026 | $28.85 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | — | — |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | — | — |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.75% |
| AUM | $62.6B | $24.9M |
| Distribution frequency | None | Annual |
| Underlying index | Bitcoin | Actively managed (no tracked index recorded) |
| Objective | Provide exposure to bitcoin price performance through a physically backed trust structure. | Seeks long-term capital appreciation through actively managed exposure to a diversified portfolio of crypto assets and crypto-related investments. |
| Asset class | Equity | Crypto |
| Inception date | 01/11/2024 | 07/16/2026 |
| Beta | 1.8887 | — |
— Distribution rate, Safety-Adjusted Yield, last dividend, and ex-dividend date are not yet available because TKNZ launched July 2026; these fields will populate after the first distribution.
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
IBIT has lagged TKNZ over the year to date, posting a -13.33% total return against 17.23%. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | Since Jul 2026 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBIT | -13.33% | 18.25% | 37.1% | 1.33 | 2.21 | -12.2% |
| TKNZ | 17.23% | 17.23% | 42.6% | 1.12 | 1.82 | -16.2% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of November 5, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since Jul 2026” measures every fund from July 16, 2026 — the start of shared available history — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the shared window since Jul 2026. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the shared window since Jul 2026) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Not a distribution payer
IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) has no distribution rate on file and its distribution frequency is None. IBIT is not a payer. The blank yield is not a zero yield.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Bottom lineWe won't call this one: TKNZ launched July 2026, so there is not yet a track record to compare. Compare the strategy, cost and holdings in the sections above and treat any performance figures for the newer ETF as provisional. What is already clear from the numbers above: the two do not cost the same — IBIT charges 0.25% against 0.75% for TKNZ, and on funds tracking the same thing that gap compounds every year you hold.
How the risk works
Read this before the income numbers below: the strategy mechanics on this page shape what those payouts can cost you.
- Crypto volatility. IBIT and TKNZ sit on top of crypto-asset prices, which routinely swing far more than equities. A single drawdown can exceed a year of distributions, so income projections deserve extra skepticism here.
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs468
Total AUM$4.63T
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
iShares, operated by BlackRock, is one of the largest and most established ETF providers globally, known for offering broad, liquid index-tracking funds across nearly all asset classes and investment styles. The lineup encompasses a comprehensive range of strategies including core equity and bond exposure, dividend and income-focused funds, covered call strategies, ESG and thematic investments, factor-based approaches, alternatives, commodities, and municipal bonds, serving both individual and institutional investors. With numerous popular ticker symbols and extensive diversification across geographies, sectors, and investment objectives, iShares provides one of the market's widest selections of ETFs for building diversified portfolios.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on IBIT.
ETFs39
Total AUM$34.6B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
T. Rowe Price is a major asset manager known for building diversified, actively managed ETF portfolios across multiple asset classes and investment styles. Their fund lineup spans bond funds, dividend and income-focused strategies, broad equity exposure, international markets, and thematic equity themes, serving both income-seeking and growth-oriented investors. The issuer offers a substantial breadth of options with tickers like PABGX and PREIX, appealing to investors seeking professional portfolio management across traditional and specialized investment categories.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on TKNZ.
Quick verdict
IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) and TKNZ (T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF) are both ETFs, but they take different approaches.
IBIT is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.25% compared to 0.75%.
IBIT has $62.6B in assets vs $24.9M for TKNZ, but TKNZ only launched July 2026 — AUM comparisons will become more meaningful as it builds a track record.
Top-holdings overlap
Positions that appear in every fund's top 10. Issuers disclose only the largest weights, so this captures the overlap of the concentrated end of each book — not the full portfolios.
— shared positions
IBIT 0.0% of its top-10 weight
TKNZ top-10 holdings unavailable
Top-10 holdings unavailable for TKNZ — cannot compute overlap.
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at current distribution rates, IBIT has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available, while TKNZ has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available.
IBIT yield—
TKNZ yield—
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, IBIT would cost approximately $250 in fees vs $750 for TKNZ (simplified, not compounded). The $500.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
IBIT ER0.25%
TKNZ ER0.75%
Strategy & risk
IBIT tracks Bitcoin with a crypto approach, while TKNZ is an actively managed ETF built around digital assets exposure.
IBIT beta1.8887
TKNZ beta—
Fund details
IBIT is managed by iShares (launched 01/11/2024) with $62.6B in assets. TKNZ is managed by T. Rowe Price (launched 07/16/2026) with $24.9M in assets.
IBIT AUM$62.6B
TKNZ AUM$24.9M
Frequently asked questions
Which of IBIT or TKNZ pays more dividend income?
Neither IBIT nor TKNZ currently reports a distribution yield, so neither is an income fund today. Compare them on holdings, cost, and total return instead.
What is the difference between IBIT and TKNZ?
IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) tracks Bitcoin with a crypto approach, while TKNZ (T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF) is an actively managed ETF built around digital assets exposure. They are issued by iShares and T. Rowe Price respectively.
Can I hold both IBIT and TKNZ?
Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.
Which has lower fees, IBIT or TKNZ?
IBIT has an expense ratio of 0.25% while TKNZ charges 0.75%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.
How much income does $10,000 in IBIT vs TKNZ generate?
At current distribution rates, IBIT does not pay distributions, so there is no cash income to estimate. TKNZ has not established a distribution history yet, so a cash estimate is not available.
Which has performed better historically, IBIT or TKNZ?
IBIT has lagged TKNZ over the year to date, posting a -13.33% total return against 17.23%. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare IBIT with
People also compare TKNZ with
Popular comparisons
IBIT vs TKNZ — at a glance
Generated October 31, 2026.
The key distinction: IBIT tracks bitcoin only; TKNZ diversifies across multiple digital assets under active portfolio management.
How they differ
The most significant difference is their underlying exposure. IBIT holds physical bitcoin directly, delivering pure bitcoin price performance. TKNZ holds a diversified portfolio of crypto assets—likely including ethereum, altcoins, and crypto infrastructure plays—selected by T. Rowe Price's active managers.
Fee structure reflects their complexity gap. IBIT charges 0.25%, while TKNZ charges 0.75%, a 50-basis-point difference driven by active management overhead. Asset base differs substantially: IBIT holds $62.6B in AUM versus TKNZ's $24.9M, giving IBIT a significantly larger capital base. IBIT reports a beta of 1.8887, reflecting its sensitivity to broader market moves.
Who each is best for
- IBIT: Fits investors seeking pure, low-cost bitcoin exposure without manager discretion—those who believe in bitcoin's long-term case and want the simplest possible implementation with minimal fees.
- TKNZ: Fits investors comfortable with active management who want exposure to crypto assets beyond bitcoin alone—those interested in a diversified digital-asset portfolio and willing to pay higher fees for manager security selection.
Key risks to know
- Bitcoin concentration and volatility in IBIT. A single-asset fund tied entirely to bitcoin's price moves. Bitcoin has experienced multi-month drawdowns exceeding 50% historically; IBIT will experience similar swings.
- Limited track record for both. IBIT launched 2 years and TKNZ launched 3 months. Neither has weathered a full market cycle, so historical performance data cannot yet predict behavior during stress or extended bear markets in crypto. Smaller asset bases can also mean tighter scrutiny from regulators and investors alike.
- Active management and performance uncertainty in TKNZ. Active crypto managers operate in a nascent, fast-moving market. Manager ability to identify winning crypto assets or time allocation shifts remains unproven over multiple cycles. Neither fund has demonstrated performance through a full crypto market cycle, so past results in their brief histories should not drive conviction.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
Learn the method
The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.
These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.