BTGD vs ZALT
STKd 100% Bitcoin & 100% Gold ETF vs Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly
Which is better, BTGD or ZALT?
Each has led over a different period.
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. BTGD led over the full window, ZALT over 1Y.
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 | BTGD | ZALT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.09% | 0.69%Best |
| AUM | $102M | $794M |
| Dividend Yield | 4.28% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 10 | 18 |
| YTD Return | -27.02% | +6.44%Best |
| 1Y Return | -41.02% | +9.12%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.33% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 53.1% | 3.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -8.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 2 years | $13,122Best | $11,798 |
| Fund Family | Quantify Funds | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Oct 15, 2024 | Oct 2, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 16, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2 years).
BTGD vs ZALT 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 years both funds cover.
BTGD vs ZALT Performance
STKd 100% Bitcoin & 100% Gold ETF (BTGD) is an ETF from Quantify Funds and Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year BTGD returned -41.02% while ZALT returned +9.12%. Year to date, BTGD is down 27.02% versus a gain of 6.44% for ZALT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BTGD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 53.1% compared with 3.7% for ZALT. 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 -58.8% for BTGD and -8.2% for ZALT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.48. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BTGD charges 1.09% per year while ZALT charges 0.69%. On a $10,000 position that is $109 vs $69 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BTGD currently yields 4.28% against 0.00% for ZALT.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BTGD and ZALT 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, BTGD or ZALT?
BTGD has an expense ratio of 1.09% while ZALT charges 0.69%. ZALT is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BTGD or ZALT?
Over the past year BTGD returned -41.02% vs +9.12% for ZALT, so ZALT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), BTGD annualized +14.55% vs +8.62% for ZALT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BTGD or ZALT?
BTGD has been the more volatile fund at 53.1% annualized versus 3.7% for ZALT. Worst drawdown: BTGD -58.8% vs ZALT -8.2%.
Should I hold both BTGD and ZALT?
BTGD and ZALT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.48, 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, BTGD or ZALT?
BTGD yields 4.28% while ZALT yields 0.00%, so BTGD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZALT better than BTGD?
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. BTGD led over the full window, ZALT over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.