$13 billion in fund flows: IBIT beats GLD decisively—Is Bitcoin replacing gold in institutional allocation logic?

On May 13, 2026, senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas from Bloomberg published a set of data on the X platform, quickly igniting discussions in the global asset allocation field: since March this year, the performance of BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF—the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT)—has significantly outperformed the world’s largest gold ETF—the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)—by 33 percentage points.

The divergence at the capital level is equally striking. During the same period, IBIT recorded approximately $4.2 billion in net inflows, while GLD experienced about $9 billion in net outflows, together forming a capital flow gap of roughly $13 billion. This is not a routine sector rotation but a set of structurally meaningful capital migration signals.

From Synchronous Rise to Divergence: Tracing the Timeline of This Rotation

To understand the deeper meaning of this data, we need to look back at the macro landscape of Q4 2025.

At that time, expectations of global central bank easing and geopolitical tensions coexisted, with gold and Bitcoin showing a rare synchronized upward trend. Bitcoin hit a historical high of about $126,000 in December 2025, while gold was also in a strong upward channel. Both asset classes shared the same macro driving logic—the demand for alternatives to fiat currency credit systems.

In January 2026, the market logic broke. According to data from the World Gold Council, global gold ETFs saw a record monthly net inflow of about $19 billion in January, pushing assets under management (AUM) to a historic peak of approximately $669 billion. Meanwhile, Bitcoin ETFs experienced overall net outflows in the same month, continuing a trend of net outflows for several months. Geopolitical conflicts boosted gold’s traditional safe-haven narrative, while Bitcoin was reduced by the market as a risk asset following a sharp pullback from its all-time high.

The real turning point occurred in March. On March 4, GLD experienced a single-day outflow of about $3 billion, the largest redemption in nearly two years. At the same time, Bitcoin ETFs ended a four-month streak of net outflows in mid-March, turning positive for the month, with the US spot Bitcoin ETF attracting about $1.32 billion in net inflows in March.

From March to May, the divergence accelerated. Bitcoin ETFs continued to record net inflows, with the US spot Bitcoin ETF net inflow in April reaching about $2.44 billion—the strongest monthly performance since 2026. Meanwhile, after a record monthly outflow of about $12 billion in March, global gold ETFs saw some recovery in April driven by Asian market demand, but signals of institutional selling in North America remained evident.

Behind the 33 Percentage Points: Dissecting the Structural Divergence Between IBIT and GLD

As of May 14, 2026, according to Gate market data, Bitcoin was quoted at approximately $79,116.70, down about 2.34% in 24 hours, with a nearly 11.76% increase over the past 30 days and a 14.09% increase over the past 90 days. Its market capitalization was about $1.58 trillion, with a market share of 57.17%.

IBIT, as the world’s largest spot Bitcoin ETF, had an AUM of about $61.91 billion as of early May. While GLD’s AUM still far exceeded IBIT’s, the directional difference in capital flows has become a key signal.

The table below summarizes key time points and data of this capital rotation:

Sources: Gate market data, Bloomberg, World Gold Council, TipRanks

Looking at the asset scale growth trajectory, IBIT reached $70 billion AUM in just 341 trading days, while GLD took 1,691 days to reach the same scale. This comparison reveals not a short-term capital game of wins and losses but the fundamental difference in the speed at which these two asset types are accepted within institutional allocation frameworks.

Replacing, Holding Firm, or Diverting: Three Narratives in the Asset Competition

Currently, three main narrative frameworks exist around this round of capital rotation, with significant tensions among them.

Narrative 1: Bitcoin is replacing gold as the “preferred hedge against devaluation” tool

A survey released by Nomura Securities in April 2026 shows that nearly 80% of institutional investors plan to allocate between 2% and 5% of their assets to cryptocurrencies. This data indirectly confirms that institutional recognition of crypto assets as a strategic long-term allocation is deepening.

Narrative 2: Gold remains the more reliable safe-haven asset, and the “digital gold” narrative of Bitcoin has yet to be validated

Not all institutions agree with the asset rotation theory. Goldman Sachs recently maintained its year-end gold price forecast at $5,400 per ounce, citing strong central bank demand and lower long-term volatility compared to Bitcoin. Some analyses point out that in 2025, gold surged significantly while Bitcoin declined, indicating that in the current macro environment, gold remains a safer choice.

Narrative 3: It’s not “substitution,” but “diversion”—the two assets are moving toward different functional roles

This perspective sees gold and Bitcoin not as zero-sum competitors but as responding with different elasticities to the same macro variables. When market sentiment favors safe-haven assets, gold tends to perform better; when liquidity is abundant and risk appetite rises, Bitcoin exhibits greater elasticity. BlackRock’s analysis indicates that the correlation between gold and Bitcoin has fallen to just 0.10, demonstrating that their roles in investment portfolios are diverging rather than overlapping.

From Marginal to Mainstream: How This Rotation Reshapes the Crypto Industry Landscape

This round of capital rotation is exerting structural influence on the crypto industry from three levels.

First, the independent status of Bitcoin ETFs as an asset class is being reinforced. As of early May 2026, the total net asset value of US spot Bitcoin ETFs has surpassed $100 billion. This scale has elevated Bitcoin ETFs from “niche products among alternative assets” to a standard component of institutional asset allocation. Nomura’s survey shows nearly 80% of institutional investors plan to allocate 2% to 5% of their assets to crypto over the next three years, indicating that the inflow potential is far from exhausted.

Second, the asset allocation framework is undergoing a generational shift. The traditional “60/40” stock/bond allocation model’s alternative asset exposure is gradually expanding from a single gold option to a dual-structure of “gold + Bitcoin.” IBIT reaching the milestone in just 341 trading days, compared to GLD’s 1,691 days, not only reflects product demand differences but also reveals a paradigm shift in the cognition of the new generation of investors regarding store-of-value assets.

Third, the passive optimization of capital structure in the crypto market is underway. The current capital rotation mainly enters through spot ETFs rather than on-chain leverage or derivatives, implying that new holdings have longer holding periods and lower risk appetite. Compared to the volatility driven by leverage in the 2024–2025 cycle, the ETF-led inflows now tend to be “allocation-oriented” rather than “trading-oriented.” This provides a firmer bottom support for Bitcoin’s price but also suggests that short-term explosive potential may be lower than in previous cycles.

Conclusion

$13 billion is the figure given by Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, representing the quantitative expression of the capital flow gap between GLD and IBIT in this cycle. The importance of this data lies not in declaring a victory for one asset class but in marking a deeper shift: institutional investors are no longer making decisions solely based on “whether to buy Bitcoin,” but are actively comparing and dynamically rebalancing “gold versus Bitcoin” in their allocations.

As of May 14, 2026, Bitcoin was quoted at approximately $79,116.70 on the Gate platform, up about 14.09% over the past 90 days, with a market cap of around $1.58 trillion. Gold prices, after peaking above $5,600 in 2025 and early 2026, have retreated. The trends of these two assets in the second quarter of 2026 show a structural divergence—this is not short-term noise but a signal that the store-of-value asset landscape is being redrawn.

For market participants, the key question is no longer “Is Bitcoin digital gold?” but rather: in the current macro environment, what proportion of your portfolio should be allocated to Bitcoin and gold respectively? The $13 billion capital migration may just be the prologue to this generational reallocation of assets.