Temporarily unavailable

Bitcoin vs. Everything exists because the choice of benchmark is half the argument. Compared to gold, Bitcoin is a volatile non-sovereign store of value. Compared to the S&P 500, it's a high-beta risk asset. Compared to Nvidia, it's a relatively boring long-duration bet. The most honest version of "how has Bitcoin done?" lets you pick the comparison and see all of them on the same indexed axis.

What each benchmark actually tells you:

• Gold. The non-sovereign monetary comparison. Same store-of-value pitch, very different volatility profile (~15% vs. 60–90% annualized).
• S&P 500 / NASDAQ. The default opportunity cost. If Bitcoin didn't beat broad equities risk-adjusted over your window, the diversification thesis has to do the heavy lifting on its own.
• Top tech stocks (AAPL, NVDA, META, MSFT, GOOGL, ORCL, TSM). The closest thing to Bitcoin's risk profile in traditional markets — concentrated, narrative-driven, capable of multi-year drawdowns. Nvidia in particular has out-returned Bitcoin in several recent windows.

Where the comparison breaks:

• Cash flows. Equities have earnings, buybacks, and dividends; Bitcoin and gold do not. Price-only charts understate equity total return slightly and ignore storage/management costs on the monetary assets.
• Survivorship. The selected equity tickers are all survivors. A 2014 chart against Yahoo, GE, or Intel tells a different story. The indices wash some of this out; the single-name tickers do not.
• Volatility scale. Sharpe is a useful normalizer but a clumsy one when annualized volatility ranges from 15% (gold) to 90% (BTC in earlier eras). Two assets can have the same Sharpe and entirely different left tails.

The honest framing: there is no single right benchmark. The comparison you choose encodes the argument you're making. Bitcoin vs. Everything lets you make several at once instead of pretending one of them is neutral.

The analogy holds on the properties that matter for a monetary asset, and breaks down on almost everything else.

Where the comparison holds:

• Hard supply schedule with no issuer discretion
• No counterparty risk in self-custody
• Borderless, censorship-resistant, easy to verify
• No yield — both are pure store-of-value assets

Where it breaks:

• Volatility profile is orders of magnitude different
• Gold has 5,000 years of monetary history and central-bank ownership; Bitcoin has 16 years and growing institutional adoption
• Industrial demand for gold provides a price floor Bitcoin doesn't have
• Bitcoin's transaction utility — settlement, programmability — has no real analog in gold

The most useful framing is not "Bitcoin replaces gold" but "Bitcoin and gold occupy adjacent roles in a diversified monetary allocation, with very different risk profiles". Many treasuries hold both for that reason.

More than any other variable in the model. Bitcoin's cycle structure means the start date dominates outcomes on horizons shorter than ~7 years.

Three representative windows tell three different stories:

• From January 2014: Bitcoin outperforms gold roughly 200× and the S&P 500 roughly 30×. Almost any allocation looks brilliant
• From November 2021 (prior cycle peak): Bitcoin trailed gold and the S&P for most of the next 18 months. Same asset, completely different story
• From any rolling 10-year window: Bitcoin has outperformed every traditional benchmark, but with materially deeper interim drawdowns

Run at least three windows when making any allocation argument. A conclusion that only works on one window is a conclusion the window is making for you.

Different question, different answer.

• Gold ETFs (GLD, IAU): track spot gold reasonably tightly, modest expense ratio (~0.25%/yr). Fair direct comparison to spot Bitcoin
• Gold miners (GDX, GDXJ): levered, operationally complex equities. Compare them to Bitcoin miners (CLSK, MARA, RIOT), not to Bitcoin itself
• Bitcoin ETFs (IBIT, FBTC): new, low-fee, very tight tracking. The cleanest spot comparison to GLD
• Bitcoin treasury equities (MSTR): levered, premium-driven, not a Bitcoin proxy in either direction. See the mNAV Premium Stress Test

The chart compares the underlying assets. Pick the vehicle separately, with eyes open about fees, tracking error and the dynamics specific to that wrapper.

A logarithmic y-axis is the honest way to compare assets that have moved across several orders of magnitude. Bitcoin has traded from ~$300 to over $100,000 within the visible window; on a linear scale, everything before 2020 collapses into a flat line and the last two years dominate the chart. Log scale gives equal vertical space to equal percentage moves — a doubling from $500 to $1,000 looks the same size as a doubling from $50,000 to $100,000.

Why log is the preferred view here:

• Percentage moves are what matter. Investors compound returns, not dollar differences. Log scale is the only view where the slope of the line equals the compound growth rate.
• Comparability across assets. Gold moved ~3× and Bitcoin moved ~300× over the same window. A linear chart makes gold look like a horizontal line next to Bitcoin; log lets you actually see gold's trajectory.
• Early history stays visible. Bull markets and drawdowns from 2014–2018 are as informative as recent ones, but they only render legibly on a log axis.
• Cycle structure is easier to read. Bitcoin's boom/bust cycles have similar magnitude in log-percent terms even as absolute prices grew. That structure only appears on a log axis.

For a raw-dollar view — useful when you care about a specific price level rather than compounded return — use the Price (USD) toggle above the chart. The axis stays logarithmic so multi-asset comparisons remain readable, but the y-axis is labeled in dollars instead of an indexed value.