Is BAVA or CLNK more undervalued in 2026?

CirclFi compares BITWISE AVALANCHE ETF (BAVA) and BITWISE CHAINLINK ETF (CLNK) using 13 institutional-grade valuation models. BAVA has a Quality of Company score of 1.6/10 while CLNK scores 3.1/10.

Which is a better buy — BAVA or CLNK?

Compare intrinsic values from 13 independent models against current market prices. CirclFi also calculates Value Trap scores. This is not financial advice — conduct your own analysis.

How do BAVA and CLNK valuations compare?

BAVA at $23.72 and CLNK at $16.39 are compared across Bayesian DCF, EPV, EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, and 8 additional models.

BAVA vs CLNK Valuation Comparison 2026 — Intrinsic Value Analysis

BAVA

Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers

BITWISE AVALANCHE ETF

Quality

1.6

out of 10

Value Trap

—

Price

$23.72

Last close

Models

0/13

Active

CLNK

Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers

BITWISE CHAINLINK ETF

Quality

3.1

out of 10

Value Trap

—

Price

$16.39

Last close

Models

2/13

Active

Model-by-Model Comparison

Model	Type	BAVA Fair Value	BAVA Upside	CLNK Fair Value	CLNK Upside
Dynamic NAV	Asset-Based	—	—	$7.98	-51.3%
PWERM	Option-Based	—	—	$15.04	-8.3%

🔒

Unlock Full 13-Model Comparison

Access all valuation models for BAVA vs CLNK — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more.

Access Full Analysis — From $27/mo →

BAVA vs CLNK — Which Stock Is More Undervalued?

CLNK scores higher with a 3.1/10 quality rating vs BAVA's 1.6/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.

Comparing BITWISE AVALANCHE ETF (BAVA) and BITWISE CHAINLINK ETF (CLNK) across 13 institutional-grade valuation models reveals how each company's intrinsic value stacks up against its market price. CirclFi's engine processes SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings, FRED macroeconomic data, and GDELT news sentiment to generate independent fair value estimates daily.

BAVA currently trades at $23.72 with a QOC of 1.6/10, while CLNK trades at $16.39 with a QOC of 3.1/10.

Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN Topology), and ensemble methods (CUCE).