| Name | Cumulative Return | Ann. Return | Ann. Vol | Sharpe | Max DD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF | 88.6% | 411.2% | 84.7% | 4.81 | -29.1% |
ETF performance based on market prices. Drag on chart to select period. Sharpe Ratio uses the one-month T-bill as the risk-free rate. From 5/18/2026 to 10/7/2026.
Name | YTD | 1D | 5D | 1M | 3M | 6M | 1Y | 2Y | 3Y | 5Y | MAX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF | 96.3% | -5.1% | -1.5% | 2.8% | 24.9% | 96.3% |
ETF performance based on market prices. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. As of 10/7/2026.
Name | YTD |
|---|---|
Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF | 96.3% |
ETF performance based on market prices. As of 10/7/2026.
Select a second series, or to correlate with the seven research factors.
ETF performance based on market prices. Daily OLS of excess return (fund − T-bill) on factor spread returns over the selected date range, intersected with each series' history. Bold with * |t| ≥ 1.96, ** |t| ≥ 2.58. Cell shading tracks each loading's t-stat. Betas are returns-based — compare with the holdings-based factor scores below. Factor returns are long-short spread returns (© Ken French, Dartmouth).
The Trust will hold Hyperliquid and establish its net asset value (“NAV”) by reference to the CF Hyperliquid-Dollar U.S. Settlement Price (“Pricing Benchmark”).
MethodologyExpense ratio from the sponsor's website. Turnover from market data (10/7/2026). Yield as of 10/7/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Summary may be from an older prospectus.
BHYP has no stock-level metrics. Fund-level metrics such as AUM and expense ratio are available in the picker.
Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Solid blue dots mark the fund's position within the clean equity fund universe (5th–95th percentile scale); the shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Digital Assets Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/7/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.
1 position
| # | Name | Weight % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hyperliquid (HYPE) (held in trust) | 100.00 |
Sector, country and factor detail need a security match; the share of weight that matched is a member figure, so the rows without one appear here with those columns blank. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.
Hover or click for definitions. Solid blue dots mark the fund: percentage rows on a 0–100% scale, holdings counts log-scaled across the clean-universe 5th–95th percentile range. The shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Digital Assets Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median.
Metric | BHYP Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF | Peer Group 65 funds | Peer Asset Class 168 funds |
|---|---|---|---|
YTD Return | 96.28% | -4.85%95 | -4.79%98 |
1Y Return | - | - | - |
3Y Return (Ann.) | - | - | - |
5Y Return (Ann.) | - | - | - |
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper | 0.34% | 0.29%34 | 0.69%73 |
Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (65 share classes across 65 funds). One share class shown per fund — the exchange-listed class where the SEC series has one, else its longest-history class; percentile ranks and medians are computed against the same deduped set. Quartile chips fill the layer the fund's rank falls in (top layer = best quartile). Funds without a full return history rank only on the horizons they cover.
Nearest funds across the whole universe, by holdings and behavior — the peer taxonomy is ignored, so matches can come from any category.
Scanning every fund's holdings, factor profile and return history for matches with BHYP… first view of a fund takes a few seconds.
The method columns are members-only — create a free account to see these figures.
MethodologyRows are the consensus top matches (a fund must place in at least two methods' top 250 to qualify, and matches missing more than one of this fund's own methods are not ranked — a row scored on fewer methods is a noisier estimate, not a better match). Click a method column to see that method's own top matches across the whole universe instead. Gray (N) beside each method's metric is that fund's rank in the whole universe on that method. Consensus Rank is the geometric mean of those universe ranks (#1.0 = the top match on every method). A dash means that method has no figure for the pair at all (one of them lacks the holdings or return history it needs). Hover a column header for each method's definition. The “Top…” strips above compare against every fund's own top match across the whole universe (they deliberately don't follow the Peer Universe selector); Top Consensus Rank is simply the #1 row's figure, with no reference band; the Holdings and Active Tilt strips carry no reference band because computing every fund's best book overlap would require a full holdings scan per fund — the dot stands alone on its natural 0–100% scale. One share class shown per fund, and a fund's own sister share classes are excluded from its Top-match strips. Consensus Rank is the geometric mean of the match's universe-wide rank across the methods (#1.0 = top match on every one). Holdings Overlap = common-holdings weight (sum of the minimum weight across shared positions, long only). Active Tilt Overlap = the same statistic on active weights (holdings minus the fund's own default benchmark, floored at 0), which strips the benchmark ballast that dominates raw overlap. Factor Similarity = 100 − a signature-weighted RMS gap across the composite factor scores (0–100 ranks within the clean equity fund universe), each axis weighted by how far this fund sits from the universe median of 50. Return Correlation = correlation of market-hedged daily returns over the trailing two years (CAPM residuals), so only market-beta co-movement is removed; requires ~18 months of daily history (378 of the window's 504 trading days). Fama-French Similarity = 1/(1+d), where d is the Euclidean distance between factor betas (market, size, value, profitability, investment, momentum, intangible value) from up to three years of daily returns (min 378 daily observations and regression R² of at least 0.25); 1.00 = identical loadings.