Choosing Between Ethereum ETFs ETHA and ETHV: A Deep Dive into Fund Size, Fees, and Liquidity

The Ethereum ETF market has matured significantly in 2025, offering investors diversified avenues to gain exposure to the second-largest cryptocurrency. Among the leading options, the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) and the VanEck Ethereum ETF (ETHV) stand out. While both track Ethereum's price, their differences in fund size, fees, and liquidity demand careful scrutiny for optimal investment decisions.

Fund Size: ETHA's Dominance and Its Implications

Fund size is a critical metric for assessing an ETF's stability and market influence. As of November 2025, ETHA commands a staggering $11.43 billion in assets under management (AUM), dwarfing ETHV's $174.07 million. This disparity translates to ETHA controlling over 60% of the total AUM across all spot Ethereum ETFs according to market analysis. A larger fund size not only enhances market confidence but also reduces the risk of fund closure-a concern for smaller ETFs like ETHV. For investors prioritizing resilience and scale, ETHA's dominance is a compelling argument.

Fees: ETHV's Cost Advantage

While ETHA's size is undeniable, ETHV appeals to cost-conscious investors. ETHV charges an expense ratio of 0.20%, compared to ETHA's 0.25% according to market reports. This 0.05% difference may seem minor, but over time, it can meaningfully impact returns, particularly for long-term holders. However, lower fees must be weighed against other factors, such as liquidity and market impact, which often outweigh cost savings for active traders or large institutional investors.

Liquidity: ETHA's Edge in Trading Volume and Stability

Liquidity is a cornerstone of efficient ETF investing, and ETHA outperforms ETHV in nearly every metric. In November 2025, ETHA recorded $1 billion in net outflows during the month but maintained $13.15 billion in cumulative net inflows since inception according to trading data. By contrast, ETHV faced $500 million in net outflows within the first three weeks of the same period according to crypto analytics. These figures underscore ETHA's ability to absorb large trades without significant price slippage, a critical advantage for investors seeking seamless execution.

Moreover, the total trading volume for Ethereum spot ETFs hit $35 billion in November 2025, with ETHA accounting for a lion's share. High liquidity also narrows bid-ask spreads, reducing transaction costs for investors. For ETHV, lower trading volume increases the risk of wider spreads and less predictable pricing, which could deter those prioritizing market efficiency.

Balancing the Trade-Offs: What Should Investors Prioritize?

The choice between ETHA and ETHV ultimately hinges on investor priorities. For those seeking liquidity, stability, and market influence, ETHA's massive AUM and trading volume make it the superior option. Its scale ensures minimal risk of closure and provides a buffer against market volatility. Conversely, cost-conscious investors with smaller positions or a long-term horizon may prefer ETHV's 0.20% expense ratio, provided they are willing to accept lower liquidity and higher price volatility.

However, it is worth noting that ETHA's slightly higher fees are often justified by its ability to deliver consistent exposure to Ethereum without the operational risks associated with smaller funds. As the market evolves, ETHA's dominance is likely to cement further, while ETHV may struggle to attract institutional capital without a significant shift in its liquidity profile.

Conclusion

In the ETHA vs. ETHV debate, no single ETF is universally superior. ETHA excels in fund size and liquidity, making it ideal for investors prioritizing market stability and execution efficiency. ETHV, while more affordable, lags in scale and trading activity, which could limit its appeal for active participants. As the Ethereum ETF landscape continues to evolve, investors must align their choices with their specific goals-whether it be cost optimization, liquidity, or long-term exposure.