BTCL vs FAPR
T-Rex 2X Long Bitcoin Daily Target ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Buffer ETF - April
Which is better, BTCL or FAPR?
FAPR has been ahead.
FAPR has a lower expense ratio. FAPR led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BTCL | FAPR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.85%Best |
| AUM | $39M | $1.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.45% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 4 | 10 |
| YTD Return | -37.84% | +8.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | -64.80% | +10.78%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.68% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.84% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 95.7% | 4.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -84.3% | -11.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $7,983 | $12,197Best |
| Fund Family | REX Shares | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 10, 2024 | Apr 16, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 10, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.3 years).
BTCL vs FAPR growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.3 years both funds cover.
BTCL vs FAPR Performance
T-Rex 2X Long Bitcoin Daily Target ETF (BTCL) is an ETF from REX Shares and FT Vest US Equity Buffer ETF - April (FAPR) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year BTCL returned -64.80% while FAPR returned +10.78%. Year to date, BTCL is down 37.84% versus a gain of 8.21% for FAPR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BTCL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 95.7% compared with 4.6% for FAPR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -84.3% for BTCL and -11.6% for FAPR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.28. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTCL charges 0.95% per year while FAPR charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $85 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTCL currently yields 2.45% against 0.00% for FAPR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BTCL and FAPR you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BTCL or FAPR?
BTCL has an expense ratio of 0.95% while FAPR charges 0.85%. FAPR is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BTCL or FAPR?
Over the past year BTCL returned -64.80% vs +10.78% for FAPR, so FAPR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BTCL annualized -9.33% vs +9.02% for FAPR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BTCL or FAPR?
BTCL has been the more volatile fund at 95.7% annualized versus 4.6% for FAPR. Worst drawdown: BTCL -84.3% vs FAPR -11.6%.
Should I hold both BTCL and FAPR?
BTCL and FAPR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.28, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BTCL or FAPR?
BTCL yields 2.45% while FAPR yields 0.00%, so BTCL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FAPR better than BTCL?
FAPR has a lower expense ratio. FAPR led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.