Data as of Sep 21, 2026.
FBTC vs VGLT: how they differ
FBTC is a spot crypto ETP and VGLT a bond index fund, and over the year VGLT returned more, −4.0% against −31.0%.
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund and Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF.
| FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund | VGLT Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | Vanguard |
| What it is | Holds bitcoin | Tracks an index of Long-term Treasury |
| Total return, 1 year | −31.0% | −4.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −47.6 pts | −20.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | not filed | 104 |
| Net assets | $13.9bn | $10.6bn |
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.
VGLT in plain words
VGLT tracks an index of Long-term Treasury. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned −4.0% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. It sat 39.0% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 18, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FBTC or VGLT?
- In the year to Sep 21, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBTC returned −31.0% and VGLT returned −4.0%, so VGLT returned more.
- Which is cheaper, FBTC or VGLT?
- FBTC charges 0.25% a year and VGLT charges 0.03%, so VGLT 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 VGLT, data as of Sep 21, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbtc-vs-vglt Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources