RENDER vs TAO: Crypto Returns, Risk & Volatility (2026)

Q: Which is a better investment: RENDER or TAO?

Over the past year, TAO looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (TAO +2.6% vs RENDER -51.6%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (TAO 0.49 vs RENDER -0.25). On risk, RENDER was less volatile (RENDER 101.8% vs TAO 102.8%), TAO had a smaller max drawdown (TAO -70.6% vs RENDER -77.9%), and TAO had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of TAO -11.08% vs RENDER -11.31%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: RENDER or TAO?

Over the past year, TAO outperformed (-51.6% vs +2.6%) with a Sharpe ratio of 0.49.

Total Return

RENDER -51.6%

TAO WIN +2.6%

Sharpe Ratio

RENDER -0.25

TAO WIN 0.49

Annualized Volatility

RENDER WIN 101.8%

TAO 102.8%

Max Drawdown

RENDER -77.9%

TAO WIN -70.6%

Analysis period: 2025-04-12 to 2026-04-11

RENDER Total Return

↓ -51.6%

TAO Total Return

↑ +2.6%

Relative Performance of RENDER vs TAO (Normalized to 100)

RENDER TAO

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Key Takeaways

Total Return: RENDER delivered a -51.6% total return, while TAO returned +2.6% over the same period. TAO outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): RENDER had a negative Sharpe (-0.25) while TAO was positive (0.49), indicating TAO had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance in this period.
Volatility (Annualized): TAO was more volatile, with 102.8% annualized volatility, versus 101.8% for RENDER.
Maximum Drawdown: TAO's maximum drawdown was -70.6%, while RENDER experienced a deeper drawdown of -77.9%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), RENDER's VaR was -7.87% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -11.31%; TAO's were -8.30% and -11.08%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: RENDER -0.12 vs TAO 0.23. Excess kurtosis: RENDER 4.40 vs TAO 3.00. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): RENDER 5/9, TAO 6/9. Worst day: RENDER -27.17% (2025-10-10) vs TAO -23.19% (2026-04-09). Best day: RENDER +26.09% (2025-11-07) vs TAO +29.03% (2025-10-12).
Risk ratios: Sortino - RENDER: -0.37 vs. TAO: 0.77 , Calmar - RENDER: -0.66 vs. TAO: 0.04 , Sterling - RENDER: -1.23 vs. TAO: -0.04 , Treynor - RENDER: -0.19 vs. TAO: -0.21 , Ulcer Index - RENDER: 52.03% vs. TAO: 36.32%

Render vs Bittensor Correlation

0.62 Average Correlation

Render and Bittensor are strongly correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.62, these assets tend to move together, limiting diversification benefits.

For portfolio construction, this strong correlation means holding both RENDER and TAO provides limited risk reduction — they're likely to decline together in downturns.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.44
Average (full period)	0.62
Minimum	-0.34
Maximum	0.97

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement.

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on April 12, 2025:

RENDER $4,841.22 -51.6%

TAO $10,259.67 +2.6%

Difference: $5,418.45 (TAO ahead)

Trade RENDER or TAO

Access these assets on trusted platforms.

Binance

RENDERTAOTrade on Binance

Affiliate disclosure

Render and Bittensor: Risk Analysis

Render experienced its maximum drawdown of -77.9% from 2025-05-10 to 2025-12-18. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Bittensor experienced its maximum drawdown of -70.6% from 2025-11-01 to 2026-02-10. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

Sharpe Ratio of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Sharpe Ratio

↓ -0.25

TAO Sharpe Ratio

↑ 0.49

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. RENDER had a negative Sharpe (-0.25) while TAO was positive (0.49), indicating TAO had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance in this period.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Sortino Ratio

↓ -0.37

TAO Sortino Ratio

↑ 0.77

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). TAO had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: RENDER 68.9% vs TAO 65.6%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Calmar Ratio

↓ -0.66

TAO Calmar Ratio

↑ 0.04

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. TAO posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Sterling Ratio

↓ -1.23

TAO Sterling Ratio

↓ -0.04

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). TAO posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Treynor Ratio

↓ -0.19

TAO Treynor Ratio

↓ -0.21

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. RENDER posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of RENDER and TAO

RENDER Ulcer Index

52.03%

TAO Ulcer Index

36.32%

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. TAO had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Render vs. Bittensor

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Metric (1-Year)	RENDER	TAO
5% VaR (daily log return)	-7.87%	-8.30%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-11.31% (worst 19 days)	-11.08% (worst 19 days)
Skew	-0.12	0.23
Excess kurtosis	4.40	3.00
2σ tail days (down / up)	5 / 9	6 / 9
Worst day	-27.17% (2025-10-10)	-23.19% (2026-04-09)
Best day	+26.09% (2025-11-07)	+29.03% (2025-10-12)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=364). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

When TAO has a big down day, RENDER also does

16.7%

1 / 6 days

When RENDER has a big down day, TAO also does

20.0%

1 / 5 days

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both RENDER and TAO had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	RENDER	TAO
2025-10-10	-27.17%	-14.09%

Days when RENDER had a big down day

Date (interval)	RENDER	TAO
2025-10-10	-27.17%	-14.09%
2025-11-03	-12.84%	-4.96%
2025-11-21	-11.23%	-8.51%
2026-01-29	-11.16%	-2.50%
2026-02-05	-16.99%	+8.25%

Days when TAO had a big down day

Date (interval)	RENDER	TAO
2025-08-25	-9.38%	-11.21%
2025-10-10	-27.17%	-14.09%
2025-10-21	-3.76%	-10.09%
2025-11-04	-6.59%	-13.63%
2026-02-04	-1.99%	-12.71%
2026-04-09	-3.36%	-23.19%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Render vs Bittensor Volatility (RENDER vs TAO)

RENDER Volatility

101.8%

±5.33% daily

TAO Volatility

102.8%

±5.38% daily

Typical daily swing

RENDER

±5.33%

TAO

±5.38%

Render's annualized volatility of 101.8% means it typically moves ±5.33% on any given day.

Bittensor's annualized volatility of 102.8% means it typically moves ±5.38% on any given day.

TAO's higher volatility means a wider path to returns — this can be attractive for tactical, shorter-term exposure, while RENDER's smoother profile may better suit long-term allocators seeking steadier growth.

For comparison, the S&P 500 typically has 15-18% annualized volatility, translating to roughly ±1% daily moves. Higher volatility means larger potential gains but also larger potential losses.

Render vs Bittensor Performance Over Time

Metric	RENDER	TAO
30 Days	13.2%	11.9%
90 Days	-26%	-8.8%
180 Days	-37.1%	-41.6%
1 Year	-51.6%	2.6%

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

Full Comparison of Render vs. Bittensor (1-Year)

Metric	RENDER	TAO
Total Return	-51.6%	+2.6%
Annualized Volatility	101.8%	102.8%
Sharpe Ratio	-0.25	0.49
Sortino Ratio	-0.37	0.77
Calmar Ratio	-0.66	0.04
Sterling Ratio	-1.23	-0.04
Treynor Ratio	-0.19	-0.21
Ulcer Index	52.03%	36.32%
Max Drawdown	-77.9%	-70.6%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.44	0.36
5% VaR (daily log return)	-7.87%	-8.30%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-11.31%	-11.08%
Skew	-0.12	0.23
Excess kurtosis	4.40	3.00
2σ tail days (down / up)	5 / 9	6 / 9

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-04-12 → 2026-04-11 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 335 rolling 30-day values (from 364 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): RENDER: 365 days/year; TAO: 365 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

RENDER: 4.17% over 2025-04-12 → 2026-04-11.

TAO: 4.17% over 2025-04-12 → 2026-04-11.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

RENDER: ≈ -51.8%/yr

TAO: ≈ -52.8%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

Render vs Bittensor: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: RENDER or TAO?

TAO showed higher volatility at 102.8% annualized, compared to 101.8% for RENDER Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does RENDER provide diversification when held with TAO?

RENDER and TAO are strongly correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.62. This strong correlation limits diversification benefits.

How bad are the worst 5% days for RENDER vs TAO?

Over the past year, RENDER's 5% VaR was -7.87% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -11.31% (worst 19 days). TAO's were -8.30% and -11.08% (worst 19 days).

Do RENDER and TAO crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=364), when TAO has a 2σ down day, RENDER also does 16.7% (1/6 days). In the other direction, when RENDER has one, TAO also does 20.0% (1/5 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: RENDER or TAO?

RENDER had a negative Sharpe (-0.25) while TAO was positive (0.49) Over the past year, indicating TAO had meaningfully better risk-adjusted performance.

Can RENDER and TAO be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their strong correlation provides limited risk reduction since they tend to move together. TAO's higher volatility (102.8%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary