BlackRock and Fidelity are two of the largest asset managers in the world, and both are heavily invested in crypto. But they are building very different things. BlackRock is leveraging its massive scale to push blockchain into the infrastructure of traditional finance, mainly through tokenized products and its dominant Bitcoin ETF. Fidelity is taking a more integrated route, building its own custody, trading, and stablecoin systems in-house. Both firms are serious about digital assets, but they disagree on how to get there.
The Scale of Their Crypto Holdings
The numbers tell part of the story. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) held about 764,395 Bitcoin as of June 19, 2026, valued at roughly $45-47 billion. That makes it the largest Bitcoin ETF globally, accounting for approximately 61% of all US spot Bitcoin ETF assets. Fidelity’s competing product, the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC), holds about 185,798 BTC, worth around $11.2 billion, placing it second in the category. Together, IBIT and FBTC command about 75-76% of all spot Bitcoin ETF assets in the United States. Both funds charge a 0.25% expense ratio and track Bitcoin with near-identical returns.
But key differences lie beneath the surface. IBIT relies on Coinbase as its external custodian. FBTC uses Fidelity Digital Assets, the firm’s own internal custody infrastructure. That is not a minor detail. Fidelity has built, regulated, and operates its own institutional-grade digital asset custody system. BlackRock outsources that function to a third-party specialist.
BlackRock’s Tokenization Push
Beyond IBIT, BlackRock has moved into tokenization at a scale unmatched by other traditional asset managers. Tokenization means representing ownership of a real-world asset, like a Treasury bill, as a token on a blockchain. BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, formally the BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund, is the leading product in this category. BUIDL invests in US Treasury bills and repurchase agreements and distributes yield daily to token holders’ wallets. The fund has grown to about $2.4 billion in assets and is increasingly used as collateral for borrowing and leveraged trading.
In May 2026, BlackRock filed for two more tokenized products with the SEC, including a stablecoin reserve vehicle. The tokenized real-world asset (RWA) sector has grown from roughly $1 billion in early 2024 to over $15 billion by mid-2026, and BUIDL leads the category. BlackRock also holds about 2.84 million ETH through its iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA), valued at more than $4.5 billion. The firm views Ethereum as critical infrastructure for tokenization.
Fidelity’s In-House Build
Fidelity has taken a different path. While BlackRock uses partnerships and external infrastructure to scale quickly, Fidelity is building end-to-end. Its strategy includes own custody, trading, research, retail brokerage, and now a stablecoin: the Fidelity Digital Dollar (FIDD), launched in February 2026. FIDD is backed by cash and short-term US Treasuries and is redeemable 1:1 for dollars. BlackRock has not launched a stablecoin, though its BUIDL fund functions similarly for institutional clients.
When it comes to Ethereum ETFs, Fidelity’s product does not include staking as of mid-2026. BlackRock’s iShares Staked Ethereum Trust (ETHB), launched in March 2026, stakes between 70% and 95% of its ETH holdings and distributes about 82% of gross staking rewards to investors. Fidelity has filed an amendment with the SEC requesting permission to incorporate staking, but it is still pending.
Which Firm Has the Stronger Position?
It depends on what an institution is looking for. BlackRock’s scale gives it distribution advantages that no competitor matches. IBIT’s options market is deeper, and BlackRock recently launched a covered-call Bitcoin fund. Its tokenization push also gives it early positioning in a fast-growing category. Fidelity’s advantage is integration. It controls more of the stack: custody, trading, research, retail, and now stablecoin issuance. For institutions that want one counterparty managing multiple layers of their digital asset exposure, Fidelity offers a tighter operational model.
For most retail investors, the practical differences between IBIT and FBTC are minor. Both charge 0.25%, track Bitcoin accurately, and offer sufficient liquidity. The structural differences matter more to large institutions managing billions in assets. Both models are working. Two of the largest asset managers in the world are now deeply committed to crypto infrastructure, and their different approaches give institutions real choices about how to gain exposure and who to trust with custody.
