Live prices are currently unavailable — the exchange feed could not be reached and no recent cached reading is held.

Bitcoin Data GuideBitcoin Reference

Research · Altcoins · Strand B

ETH and BTC drawdowns compared

A peak-to-trough comparison across cycles, with the method and the windows stated before any conclusion is drawn. The point of the page is the comparison method: how to measure two assets' declines so that the figures are actually comparable.

Last reviewed 2026-09-21Source: CoinGecko historical price dataMethod and windows only. No drawdown figure is asserted.

Making two drawdowns comparable

Two drawdown figures are only comparable if they were computed the same way over the same window. That sounds obvious and is routinely violated. A figure computed from intraday extremes will be deeper than one computed from daily closes. A figure computed over a calendar year will differ from one computed over a cycle. A figure computed from a peak that was itself a brief spike will be deeper than one computed from a peak that was sustained. Before any comparison is drawn, the four choices — price source, sampling frequency, peak definition and window — have to be fixed and stated.

This page fixes them as follows. The price source is the published daily close series for each asset. The sampling frequency is daily. The peak is the highest daily close within the window, and the trough is the lowest daily close after that peak and before the window ends. The window is the completed cycle, with boundaries taken from this site's cycle record so that both assets are measured over identical dates. Every figure in the comparison is reproducible from those four choices.

The recovery measure is defined separately and deliberately. Time to recovery is measured from the peak, not from the trough, because that is the period a holder who bought at the top actually waited. Measuring from the trough produces a shorter and more flattering number that answers a different question. The Recovery Time page applies the same convention to Bitcoin.

The windows and what each contains

The comparison windows used on this page, and the measurement choices that make the two assets' drawdowns comparable within each.
WindowBoundary definitionApplied to
Completed cycleCycle high to the subsequent cycle low, dates from this site's cycle recordBoth assets, over identical dates
PeakHighest daily close within the windowBoth assets, independently identified
TroughLowest daily close after the peak and within the windowBoth assets, independently identified
RecoveryFirst daily close above the peak, measured from the peakBoth assets; a window with no recovery is labelled as open

Last reviewed 2026-09-21Source: Method definition; cycle boundaries from this site's cycle recordThe table defines the windows; it does not report results within them.

One window deserves a specific caveat. A cycle that has not yet produced a recovery has no recovery figure, and the honest treatment is to label it open rather than to compute a partial number and present it alongside completed ones. A partial recovery time is not a shorter recovery time; it is an unknown. This site applies the same rule to Bitcoin's own halving-window and cycle tables, and it applies it here.

A second caveat concerns the earliest window. Ethereum's public trading history is shorter than Bitcoin's, so the earliest cycles in Bitcoin's record have no ETH counterpart. Those windows are excluded from the comparison rather than filled with a partial series. The comparison therefore covers the cycles both assets experienced, and the number of those is small.

What a difference in drawdown depth means

A deeper drawdown in one asset over a shared window means that asset fell further from its own peak. It does not mean the other asset caused the fall, and it does not establish that the deeper-falling asset is structurally riskier. Several mechanisms produce a deeper decline: greater sensitivity to a common factor, a thinner order book, a larger share of leveraged holders, or an asset-specific negative event during the window. The drawdown figure is consistent with all of them.

The comparison is nonetheless useful for one purpose: it describes the relative experience of holding each asset through the same market environment. That is a real and checkable statement, and it is the statement this page is willing to make. Anything beyond it — a claim about which asset is safer, or about what the next cycle will look like — is not supported by the method. For the underlying definitions, see Drawdown Explained and Cycle Comparison.

Dataset, period, method and limitations

Dataset
Daily ETH and BTC closing prices from CoinGecko. Cycle boundaries from this site's own cycle record.
Period
The completed cycles both assets experienced, from Ethereum's public trading history to the last-reviewed date stated above.
Method
For each window, the peak is the highest daily close and the trough the lowest daily close after it. Drawdown is the peak-to-trough decline as a percentage of the peak. Recovery is measured from the peak to the first close above it. Both assets use identical windows and identical measurement choices.
Limitations
Daily closes understate intraday extremes. Windows without a recovery are labelled open rather than assigned a partial figure. The number of shared completed cycles is small, so no structural conclusion about relative risk can be drawn.

What this page does not claim

This page does not state a drawdown percentage or a recovery time. It does not claim that one asset's decline caused the other's, and it does not conclude that either asset is structurally riskier from a small sample of shared cycles. It does not present a partial recovery as a completed one.

Sources and references

Every source below is named and linked. Where a page describes a method rather than a figure, the source is the specification or documentation that defines the method.

Related reading