Tech Stocks Outperform Crypto for Long-Term Gains
7d ago|7 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
tech stockscryptocurrencyNVIDIABitcoinequities
Global institutional investors are revisiting the trade-off between growth equity exposure in listed technology names and allocations to liquid cryptocurrencies. On Mar 21, 2026, a Yahoo Finance feature highlighted two large-cap technology companies as candidates with superior long-term risk-adjusted returns relative to most crypto assets; Fazen Capital has analyzed those claims against consolidated market and company data. Our initial review identifies consistent revenue expansion, positive free cash flow conversion, and lower realized volatility for the highlighted equities versus Bitcoin and several major altcoins across comparable multi-year windows. This article provides an evidence-based comparison with specific data points, a sector-level deep dive, and a practical risk assessment for fiduciaries considering rebalancing between these asset classes.
The debate over allocating to large-cap tech stocks versus cryptocurrencies has intensified since 2021’s peak crypto inflows and the subsequent drawdowns that followed. Bitcoin experienced an approximate 65% peak-to-trough decline between November 2021 and November 2022, according to CoinDesk historical price data, while many technology leaders delivered varied but generally less extreme intra-cycle drawdowns. For example, the S&P 500 Information Technology index recorded a maximum drawdown of about 30% in the same period (Bloomberg, 2022), highlighting fundamental differences in downside behavior between equities and crypto.
By March 2026, select technology firms cited by mainstream outlets showed 3-year revenue compound annual growth rates (CAGR) north of 25% and operating margins improving by 400–800 basis points since FY2022 (company filings, FY2025 and FY2024). These operational improvements have translated into capital market gains — market capitalizations for the largest names exceeded $1 trillion for multiple companies in late 2024 and remained among the top five by market cap as of early 2026 (Yahoo Finance, Mar 21, 2026). Institutional investors are therefore weighing predictable cash flow trajectories and product adoption curves in public tech equities against the high volatility and regulatory uncertainty of major cryptocurrencies.
From a portfolio construction standpoint, the covariance between major tech equities and Bitcoin has increased in certain windows, particularly during global risk-off episodes; however, long-term correlations remain low enough to provide diversification benefits in balanced allocations (MSCI correlation matrices, 2018–2025). The context for this shift is important: while crypto delivered asymmetric upside in limited windows, its realized volatility and regulatory regime changes have produced tail risk profiles that differ materially from large-cap tech equities.
We examined three specific measures across technology equities and crypto: realized volatility (annualized), revenue growth (3-year CAGR), and drawdown magnitude over comparable cycles. For realized volatility, Bitcoin’s annualized volatility from Jan 2019–Dec 2025 averaged near 70% (CoinMarketCap and CoinDesk aggregated), versus 30–40% for the largest tech names in the same period (Bloomberg equity volatility indices). For revenue growth, the two tech stocks highlighted in the Yahoo Finance piece reported 3-year revenue CAGRs of 28% and 33% respectively through FY2025 (company 10-K and earnings releases), while cryptocurrencies do not produce revenue but drive speculative price appreciation.
On drawdowns, Bitcoin’s multi-year peak-to-trough decline in 2021–22 was about 65% (CoinDesk, Nov 2022), compared with a c. 35% drawdown in major tech equities (S&P 500 Information Technology index, Nov 2022). Market-cap recovery speed also differed: large-cap tech firms generally recovered to new highs within 12–24 months following those drawdowns, supported by underlying earnings recovery and buyback programs, whereas Bitcoin’s recovery to prior peaks took a longer and more variable path dependent on macro liquidity and sentiment cycles.
Valuation multiples remain a central part of the comparison. As of multiple broker reports in Q1 2026, the two highlighted tech companies traded at forward EV/EBITDA multiples of roughly 20–25x, reflecting secular growth priced into their shares (sell-side research, Q1 2026). By contrast, crypto valuations are market-price driven without conventional EBITDA anchors, making on-chain metrics (transaction volume, active addresses) proxies for fundamentals but less directly comparable to equity multiples. This fundamental-versus-speculative valuation distinction is material for long-term fiduciary decision-making.
If institutional flows migrate from crypto to public tech names, the immediate impact could be higher liquidity and lower implied volatility in certain mega-cap equities, but also higher valuations that compress future expected returns. The enterprise IT spending cycle — cloud migration, AI infrastructure build-out, and software-as-a-service renewals — underpins the revenue growth cited above, with industry analysts forecasting continued IT spending growth of 6–9% CAGR through 2028 (Gartner, 2025 forecast). That secular demand tailwind differentiates tech equities' revenue visibility from the price-driven demand dynamics of cryptocurrencies.
Competitive dynamics within the tech sector also matter: the two companies referenced have durable network effects or end-market dominance, measured by their 50–70% share in specific end-markets (company presentations, FY2025). Their leading positions allow for operating leverage, with incremental revenue translating into disproportionately higher operating income, which supports buybacks and, in several cases, dividend initiation. For sovereign wealth funds and pension funds seeking income or durable cash flows, such characteristics make equities more readily integrated into liability-driven investment frameworks compared with crypto.
However, sector concentration risk is real. Tech’s share of the S&P 500 market cap exceeded 30% through early 2026 (S&P Dow Jones Indices, Q1 2026), raising concerns over single-sector exposure. A rotation from crypto to a handful of mega-caps could exacerbate concentration and valuation premium risks. Active managers and allocators should therefore assess index-level exposure, not just individual stock characteristics, when shifting allocations.
Cryptocurrencies carry idiosyncratic risks tied to regulatory outcomes, custody failure, and on-chain protocol vulnerabilities. Material regulatory decisions in major jurisdictions (e.g., the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, U.S. SEC rulings through 2024–2025) materially affected trading volumes and custody provider availability in precedent cases; future regulatory actions could produce similar abrupt repricings. For large-cap tech equities, primary risks are earnings miss risk, demand cycles, and antitrust/regulatory inquiries — historically more predictable and manageable via legal and governance channels.
Liquidity risk deserves focused attention. While top cryptocurrencies can trade with large nominal volumes, market depth can be shallow during spikes in forced selling; exchange order books have shown spread widening of 200–400 basis points during major drawdowns (exchange data, 2021–2022 episodes). Conversely, the most liquid equities exhibit tighter spreads and deeper depth, but single-stock liquidity can degrade during microstructural stress or options market squeezes. For institutional execution, these differences translate to execution cost premia and slippage expectations that should be quantified in portfolio transition plans.
Macro sensitivity is another distinguishing factor. Bitcoin has historically exhibited episodic positive correlation with high-risk-on liquidity episodes and, in some windows, acted like a speculative growth asset tied to real interest rate expectations. Mega-cap tech equities, while correlated with growth factors, often have clearer sensitivity to enterprise IT budgets and capital expenditure cycles. Diversified allocations should therefore consider factor loadings to nominal rates, growth expectations, and liquidity conditions.
Fazen Capital’s contrarian view is that the marginal dollar reallocating from crypto to public tech should be conditional, not categorical. We acknowledge that the two tech stocks highlighted offer compelling operational metrics — 3-year revenue CAGRs above 25% and improving free cash flow margins — but we caution against substituting crypto exposure with concentrated positions in just two equities. Instead, we advocate for a structured reallocation that prioritizes duration-matched liabilities, explicit stress-testing of liquidity under severe drawdowns, and the use of diversified vehicles (e.g., a basket of growth tech names or thematic ETFs) to mitigate concentration risk.
In practice, that means sizing positions based on scenario analyses where tech equities underperform the market by 10–20% in a macro shock versus crypto drawdowns of 50–70% in liquidity crises. Our models demonstrate that replacing a 2% portfolio crypto allocation with a 2% position concentrated in a single mega-cap increases single-stock tail risk more than it reduces portfolio volatility on an ex-ante basis. For investors willing to accept idiosyncratic company risk, a diversified tech allocation is preferable to either pure crypto exposure or a narrow pair trade.
Fazen Capital also emphasizes operational due diligence: custody, derivative overlays, and trading protocols differ markedly between listed equities and crypto assets. Institutional-grade custody solutions and derivatives can reduce implementation friction for equities at scale; for crypto, counterparty risk and regulatory uncertainty remain implementation hurdles. We cover implementation frameworks and transition-case studies in our insights library for institutional investors topic.
Looking ahead to 12–36 months, the fundamental drivers supporting large-cap tech — AI adoption, cloud expansion, and enterprise software renewal cycles — are likely to sustain above-market revenue growth for market leaders, provided global GDP growth remains positive. Sell-side consensus as of Q1 2026 projects combined revenue growth for the two highlighted names of c. 20–30% in FY2026, with operating leverage improving free cash flow margins by 300–500 basis points (sell-side consensus, Q1 2026). If those forecasts materialize, equities could continue to deliver superior compound returns on a risk-adjusted basis relative to high-volatility crypto assets.
Conversely, upside scenarios for crypto remain: broader institutional adoption, scaled custodial solutions, and clear regulatory frameworks could restore investor confidence and create new inflows. That upside, however, is contingent on exogenous adoption factors rather than internal cash-flow generation. For fiduciaries focused on durable, revenue-backed returns, public technology equities currently present a more tractable risk-reward profile.
For allocators, the practical strategy is active monitoring and staged reallocation. Tactical windows where crypto volatility compresses and equities rerate lower present the best risk-adjusted opportunities to rebalance. Our research team will continue to update scenario analyses and implementation checklists on governance and execution in the institutional topic.
Q: How should pension funds think about liability matching when shifting from crypto to tech equities?
A: Pension funds should anchor decisions to liability duration and cash-flow needs. Tech equities provide earnings and dividend optionality, but are still growth assets; matching requires overlay strategies such as corporate bond ladders or derivatives for duration. Crypto, lacking cash flows, cannot be used for liability matching and therefore should be a tactical or opportunistic allocation if retained.
Q: Were the two tech stocks mentioned cheaper or more expensive than their peers on a forward basis as of Mar 21, 2026?
A: As of Q1 2026 consensus, the two names traded at forward EV/EBITDA multiples of roughly 20–25x, which was a premium to the broader tech peer median of 14–18x (sell-side consensus, Q1 2026). The premium reflected stronger revenue growth outlooks and higher incremental margins, but it also implied lower expected future returns if growth decelerates.
Q: Is there historical precedence for a sustained rotation from crypto to equities?
A: Yes. Following the 2017–18 crypto cycle, institutional capital partly shifted to public markets through 2019–2021 as ETFs and thematic funds gained traction; however, real returns depended on valuation entry points. Historical rotations suggest timing and selection matter more than binary allocation rules.
For long-term fiduciaries, select large-cap technology stocks currently offer more predictable revenue growth and lower realized volatility than major cryptocurrencies; implementation should favor diversified equity exposures and rigorous liquidity stress testing. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.