BTCL vs GJAN
T-Rex 2X Long Bitcoin Daily Target ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - January
Which is better, BTCL or GJAN?
GJAN has been ahead.
GJAN has a lower expense ratio. GJAN 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 | GJAN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.85%Best |
| AUM | $39M | $443M |
| Dividend Yield | 2.45% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 4 | 10 |
| YTD Return | -37.84% | +8.05%Best |
| 1Y Return | -64.80% | +11.35%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.30% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 95.7% | 5.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -84.3% | -10.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $7,983 | $12,503Best |
| Fund Family | REX Shares | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 10, 2024 | Jan 20, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), 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 GJAN 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 GJAN Performance
T-Rex 2X Long Bitcoin Daily Target ETF (BTCL) is an ETF from REX Shares and FT Vest US Equity Moderate Buffer ETF - January (GJAN) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year BTCL returned -64.80% while GJAN returned +11.35%. Year to date, BTCL is down 37.84% versus a gain of 8.05% for GJAN.
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 5.4% for GJAN. 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 -10.6% for GJAN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.32. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTCL charges 0.95% per year while GJAN 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 GJAN.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BTCL and GJAN 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 GJAN?
BTCL has an expense ratio of 0.95% while GJAN charges 0.85%. GJAN is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BTCL or GJAN?
Over the past year BTCL returned -64.80% vs +11.35% for GJAN, so GJAN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BTCL annualized -9.33% vs +10.20% for GJAN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BTCL or GJAN?
BTCL has been the more volatile fund at 95.7% annualized versus 5.4% for GJAN. Worst drawdown: BTCL -84.3% vs GJAN -10.6%.
Should I hold both BTCL and GJAN?
BTCL and GJAN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.32, 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 GJAN?
BTCL yields 2.45% while GJAN yields 0.00%, so BTCL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GJAN better than BTCL?
GJAN has a lower expense ratio. GJAN 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.