Data as of Sep 21, 2026.
FBTC vs IWB: how they differ
FBTC is a spot crypto ETP and IWB an equity index fund, and over the year IWB returned more, +15.6% against −31.0%.
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.
| FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund | IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | iShares |
| What it is | Holds bitcoin | Tracks the Russell 1000 |
| Total return, 1 year | −31.0% | +15.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −47.6 pts | −0.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | not filed | 1028 |
| Net assets | $13.9bn | $48.9bn |
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.
IWB in plain words
IWB tracks the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned +15.6% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Sep 18, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1028 positions, with the top ten at 35.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FBTC or IWB?
- In the year to Sep 21, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBTC returned −31.0% and IWB returned +15.6%, so IWB returned more.
- Which is cheaper, FBTC or IWB?
- FBTC charges 0.25% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB 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 IWB, data as of Sep 21, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbtc-vs-iwb Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources