Data as of Sep 21, 2026.
FBTC vs IVV: how they differ
FBTC is a spot crypto ETP and IVV an equity index fund, and over the year IVV returned more, +16.6% against −31.0%.
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF.
| FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund | IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | iShares |
| What it is | Holds bitcoin | Tracks the S&P 500 |
| Total return, 1 year | −31.0% | +16.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −47.6 pts | 0.0 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | not filed | 508 |
| Net assets | $13.9bn | $846.6bn |
FBTC in plain words
FBTC holds bitcoin. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned −31.0% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. It sat 35.4% below its high of Oct 6, 2025 on Sep 18, 2026.
IVV in plain words
IVV tracks the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned +16.6% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Sep 18, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 508 positions, with the top ten at 38.6%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FBTC or IVV?
- In the year to Sep 21, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBTC returned −31.0% and IVV returned +16.6%, so IVV returned more.
- Which is cheaper, FBTC or IVV?
- FBTC charges 0.25% a year and IVV charges 0.03%, so IVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FBTC against IVV, data as of Sep 21, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbtc-vs-ivv Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources