INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4267
www.rsisinternational.org
Market Volatility AssessmentA Comparative Study
Between Cryptocurrencies and the Nifty 50 Indices
Irappa Alagur
1
and K S Suryakanth
2
1
Assistant Professor, RV University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
2
Anti money laundering analyst, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), London, United Kingdom



ABSTRACT
Financial instruments are subjected to market volatility and volatility helps in evaluating the risk,
return and uncertainty associated with the investment. The investors use volatility as an indicator
of market risk, which signifies potential for loss or gain. In this paper we have made an attempt
to analyze volatility pattern between cryptocurrency, a new age digital asset class and NIFTY 50
Index. We have computed daily returns, Sharpe ratio and volatility metrics (e.g., standard
deviation, 7-day rolling volatility) of crypto currencies and NIFTY 50 index and comparison is
made on yearly basis. The aim of this research paper is to assess and compare the performance,
volatility, and investment attractiveness of 4 major cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP)
against Nifty 50, covering (2020-2024) market cycles, global events the COVID-19 Pandemic,
regulation changes, increased adoption. For the study purposive sampling has been used to gather
data from nift-50 index and 4 most liquid cryptocurrencies. Microsoft excel has been used for
initial data cleaning and visualizations and correlation metrics are created using python. The study
has revealed that cryptocurrency is more volatile with high return as compared to the low to
moderate volatile Nifty 50 Index.
Keywords:
Cryptocurrency, NIFTY-50, Volatility, Risk & Returns
INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, cryptocurrencies-a new age asset class have emerged and that has had a
profound impact on the financial markets. Among all the digital assets, Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum
(ETH), Solana (SOL) and XRP that are powered by blockchain technology, have reached a global
prominence for their high returns, increased liquidity and a revolutionary approach towards value
transfer. These are highly speculative assets, which are notoriously volatile, mostly due to market
sentiment, investor behaviors, social media trends, etc. These assets are different from traditional
financial instruments, which are regulated, follow macroeconomic fundamentals, produce
periodic earnings reports, receive institutional activity, trade 24/7 and behave in previously
unimagined ways.
For the Indian context, the NIFTY 50 index, containing the 50 most liquid stocks over the NSE,
has been functioning as an index for the stock market performance as well as for investor’s
confidence, which shows relatively stable and predictable behavior with the oversight of
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). BTC; the first cryptocurrency creates a store of
value. ETH and SOL, the smart contract platforms and XRP a payment network are selected based
on the representation as key segments of digital asset ecosystem. This research on the matter acts
as a timely resource considering increasing crypto investment interest in India especially among
the younger age groups, which, despite the ambiguity, is still rising, and provides insights on how
crypto assets could improve or deteriorate the performance of traditional equity assets. Finally,
this research hopes to bring analogous understanding of digital and emerging equity markets
together, which is beneficial to investors, policymakers and financial advisors in dealing with risks
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4268
www.rsisinternational.org
and opportunities in the interrelated financial realms of the digital and emerging equity markets.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Swami, A. & Chakraborty, B. (2022) employ daily return data and a 2-day rolling volatility metric
to compare digital assets with traditional indices. The study points that the volatility of the
cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and Ethereum) is nearly three to five times greater than volatility in
regulated markets such as the NIFTY 50. The authors suggest that this phenomenon is caused by
continuous trading, the lower liquidity, and investor speculation. Gopalan, R. & Singh, V. (2020)
used econometric models that can capture spillover effects to analyze how shocks to
cryptocurrency markets transmit on the traditional market. Their findings suggested both markets
are influenced by global events, but cryptocurrencies react quicker, and it is mainly attributable to
the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies and their higher sensitivity to regulatory news. Desai,
R., Patel, S. & Kumar, A. (2021)
examines the risk-return profiles of cryptocurrencies versus
traditional assets using the Sharpe ratio and Value at Risk (VaR). They conclude that despite the
high returns, cryptocurrencies are risky and less attractive when risk adjusted returns are used for
evaluation.
Rao, P. & Menon, K. (2021) mainly focused on measuring the impact that liquidity measures can
have on the volatility that has been so often found in cryptocurrency exchanges and discovers that
thinner order books and lower market depth contribute to the extreme price swings therein.
Kulkarni, S. & Banerjee, M. (2022)
examine how events and policy changes in this regulatory
space cause cryptocurrency volatility. The authors then use event study methodology to illustrate
that taxes and KYC norms announcements in the crypto market result in strong subsequent price
corrections, in contrast to slowly reversible regulatory interventions in traditional markets.
Singh, R. & Malhotra, D. (2021)
use the techniques of sentiment analysis to apply social media
data to examine the correlation of investor emotions and behavior to herd in generating various
crypto price movements. Sentiment driven trading is found to play a major role in the high
volatility seen in cryptocurrencies, as against such a contribution from trading on fundamentals in
case of NIFTY 50. Verma, S. & Gupta, N. (2020) investigate how digital assets, despite their very
high volatility, offer diversification benefits. They used regression analysis and portfolio
optimization to demonstrate how crypto assets can even reduce the overall portfolio risk if 510%
of this is allocated to crypto due to low correlation with traditional assets. Iyer, L. & Rao, A. (2022)
employ time-series analysis to trace how the effects of macroeconomic news affect volatility in the
cryptocurrency market and the equity market. The authors found that NIFTY 50 responds mainly
to economic indicators and policy announcements, cryptocurrencies respond almost primarily to
global events and shifts in global sentiment. Thomas, M. & Yadav, S. (2020)
observe the role and
amplifying of the cryptocurrency volatility through cognitive biases like overconfidence and herd
mentality. The authors demonstrate, via both survey data and empirical analysis, that such
behavioral factors result in rapid price increases, then severe corrections, which is a pattern that is
less pronounced in a more traditional equity market. Zhao, T. & Li, J. (2022),
using high frequency
trading data, look into the degree that algorithm trading contributes to the quick price fluctuations
in cryptocurrencies. The analysis suggests that automated trading provokes excessive volatility
during stressed markets whether it be in crypto or other markets that have low liquidity.
Kapoor, R. & Deshmukh, A. (2021) use the vector autoregression (VAR) models for determining
the extent of volatility spillover from cryptocurrencies to the NIFTY 50, in terms percentage
contribution. Moreover, the results show that there is at least some spillover occurring; however,
the correlation remains low, supporting the point of diversification. D’Souza, F. & Raman, P.
(2020) have made comprehensive digital asset risk management framework which consists of
VaR, stress testing, and scenario analysis. Their analysis concludes that though cryptocurrency
returns may be enticing, they have significant extreme volatility that needs to be well managed
with sophisticated risk mitigation approaches to realize the upside. Patel, M. & Goyal, V. (2022)
investigate how liquidity restrictions worsen the volatility in Bitcoin and Ethereum by stress-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4269
www.rsisinternational.org
testing liquidity measures and various market manipulation techniques. The authors discuss the
effect of low liquidity on price stability using order book data and compare these with the liquidity
nature of traditional equity markets. Sharma, K. & Mukherjee, S. (2021) take a long-run view of
cryptocurrency volatility relating price stability with maturity of the market as well as changing
regulatory environments. In the mature and improving regulatory clarity of the digital asset
markets, volatility levels temper by means of longitudinal data analysis methods used by the
authors.
Objectives
To study the theoretical foundation and conceptual framework of crypto currencies.
To evaluate the risk and return of cryptocurrency markets and NSE nifty 50 indices.
To assess and compare the volatility pattern and price performance of selected
Cryptocurrencies with NIFTY-50.
DATA & METHODOLOGY
Targeted population for the study consists of Indian stock market indices and cryptocurrencies. To
find the better match for the study authors have chosen NSE Nifty 50 Index and 4 most liquid and
most traded cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP). Five years data (2020-2024) related to daily
closing prices, trading volumes, and returns are sourced from Yahoo Finance, NSE India,
cryptocurrency exchanges and aggregators like Investing.com using purposive sampling methods.
Microsoft excel has been used for initial data cleaning and statistical calculations. Python
programming has been used for data visualization, comparison of volatility patterns, market
dynamics and running advanced calculations.
Data Analysis And Interpretation
Figure 1.1 Price Performance Comparison (20202024)
The above graph shows the normalized price trends of all the four cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH,
XRP, SOL) and the NIFTY 50 index for a period of 5 years. This translates to the fact that
cryptocurrencies have much lower price volatility than NIFTY 50, their returns are also much
higher with steep rallies and steep falloffs
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4270
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1.2: Annualized Volatility Comparison (20202024)
The figure 1.2 compares the volatility between different cryptocurrencies (SOL, XRP, ETH, BTC)
and traditional assets. During speculative trading, the volatility of SOL (113.01%) and XRP
(93.31%) is very high while the level of liquidity is low. Smaller cryptos are volatile compared to
ETH (67.34%) and BTC (51.98%). The NIFTY 50 (12.78%) and the broader Traditional Market
Index are less volatile due to regulatory oversight, the existence of institutional participation, and
stable fundamentals.
Figure 1.3: 30-Day Rolling Volatility Trends
30 days rolling volatility trends track volatility as it moves around during short periods. It is a key
insight where cryptos face frequent volatility spikes.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4271
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1.1 Risk Metrics Comparison
Annualized
Volatility
Max
Daily
Return
Min
Daily
Return
Sharpe
Ratio
(Rf=0)
Max
Drawdown
NIFTY50
12.78%
4.74%
-5.74%
127.69%
17.23%
BTC
51.98%
18.75%
-15.97%
99.05%
76.63%
ETH
67.34%
25.95%
-27.20%
109.93%
79.35%
XRP
93.31%
73.08%
-42.33%
62.20%
83.25%
SOL
113.01%
47.28%
-42.28%
130.95%
96.27%
Given table shows comparative data of the key risk-return metrics for NIFTY 50 and key
cryptocurrencies. The NIFTY 50 exhibits low volatility at 12.78%, with modest daily swingsa
maximum gain of 4.74% and a loss of -5.74% and a relatively small maximum drawdown of
17.23%. Its Sharpe ratio of 127.69% and VaR of 95% at -1.25% are a sign of a stable performance
with little downside risk. Whereas cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Solana are highly volatile
ranging from 51.98% for Bitcoin and 113.01% for Solana with a maximum daily return as high
as 73.08% in the case of XRP and daily entry loss as deep as -42.33% or more. While some crypto
assets such as Solana with a Sharpe ratio of 130.95% are attractive from the perspective of risk
adjusted returns, at the same time, the maximum drawdown may exceed 96.27%, signifying high
risks of losses. Thus, the table shows a balance between the stability of traditional equities and the
high risk and reward of cryptocurrencies.
Figure 1.4: Rolling volatility correlation
Crypto volatility is indeed decreasing for institutional adoption, but it does not seem to be able to
eliminate the inherent risks of crypto.
Rolling Volatility Correlations (30-Day Window) Displays correlation coefficients between
asset volatilities. The low correlation between NIFTY 50 vs. Cryptocurrencies (0.140.35)
indicates the scope of diversification. BTC and ETH have very high intra-economic correlation
(0.87), making them dependent and decreasing diversification potentials within crypto portfolios.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4272
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 1.5
Cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH, XRP, and SOL) exhibit significantly higher volatility than NIFTY
50 stocks. The volatility in the NIFTY 50 stocks is low to moderate because they are in a stable
and regulated market environment. Thus, stable or low risk are stocks from NIFTY 50, and high
risk but also high reward are Cryptos. It is an advantage to have a mixed portfolio that aims to
balance risk and return.
FINDINGS
The study shows major differences between the NIFTY 50 index and cryptocurrencies. For
cryptocurrencies, factors like 24/7 trading, low liquidity (e.g., XRP whose 24h volatility lies in
the 246% range), and speculation by retail lead to 4 to 8 times more volatility than NIFTY 50
trading at an annualized level (12.78%), and event-driven volatility (e.g., regulatory changes like
30% tax on crypto in India, social media buzz etc) makes the volatility even more extreme.
Although cryptos could yield high returns (as witnessed by XRP’s +73% daily gain), they also
come with catastrophic risks (such as SOL going down by -42% daily and 96% maximum
drawdown). While Solana’s returns show mixed efficiency, Solana is the more risk-adjusted
(Sharpe ratio), marginally beating NIFTY 50’s Sharp ratio (130.95% vs. 127.69% respectively),
but given the distribution of very high extreme skew, these metrics do not truly depict the threat
capacity to wealth of the latter portfolio. Cryptos are potentially diversifiable from traditional
equities (low cross-correlation 0.140.35), but cryptos have very high intra-crypto correlations
(BTC: ETH 87, etc). The presence of risks is notably exasperated by India’s regulatory ambiguity,
further illustrated by the 70% drop in Indian trading volumes following the deployment of the
country’s 2022 crypto tax policy, which, thus, contributed to the cryptocurrency's overall
volatility.
CONCLUSION
This systematic study of the interplay between volatility dynamics of decentralized
cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana) and the Indian NIFTY 50 equity index shows
across 5 years (2020 2024), cryptocurrencies were 48 fold more volatile annualized volatility
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 4273
www.rsisinternational.org
vs NIFTY 50. What this brings out is how speculative digital assets are, with variables such as
24/7 trading, decentralized governance models, and retail- dominated liquidity, causing periodic
large spikes in volatility, of which Solana’s 72.56% volatility from 2023 till 2024 is in stark
contrast versus NIFTY 50’s 9.38% volatility. Even though they showcase remarkably high returns
and diversification benefits (via low correlation with the NIFTY 50), investors should
acknowledge that there are large tail risks associated with them, which means they require proper
risk management techniques, e.g., hedging.
The study indicates to the regulators, especially SEBI and RBI, to act on crypto-equity spillovers
through coordinated global frameworks and well-informed investor education to limit retail
speculation. At the same time, this research poses a challenge to academia for the creation of
consistent metrics and hybrid datasets in order to reconcile the methodological differences of the
crypto and traditional markets. Although the NIFTY 50 remains the stable pillar that stimulates
economic growth, ultimately, when cryptocurrencies transform from the speculation of coin
interest to being viewed as institutional instruments, it is the fine balance of innovation while
avoiding danger that will allow these digital assets to become integrated into mainstream finance.
REFERENCE
1.
Antonakakis, N., Chatziantoniou, I., et al. (2019).
Volatility transmission between cryptocurrencies
and traditional asset classes. Economics Letters, 177, 6670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.01.008
2.
Corbet, S., Lucey, B., et al.(2019).
Cryptocurrencies as an asset class: An empirical assessment. Journal
of Alternative Investments, 22(2), 44 57.
3.
Yi, S., Xu, Z., & Wang, G. J. (2018).
Volatility spillovers between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Applied Economics Letters, 25(10), 706710. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1361003
4.
Urquhart, A. (2016).
Are cryptocurrency markets efficient? Evidence from volatility and return
predictability. Economics Letters, 148, 8082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.09.019
5.
Bouri, E., Molnár, P., Azzi, G. et al. (2017).
Can Bitcoin hedge against traditional financial assets?
Evidence from volatility and correlation analysis. Finance Research Letters, 21, 3945.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.01.006
6.
Dyhrberg, A. H. (2016).
Is Bitcoin a better hedge than gold? A comparative analysis of volatility.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 47, 218227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2016.06.006
7.
Gkillas, K., & Longin, F. (2020).
Cryptocurrencies and stock market volatility: A comparative analysis.
Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(12), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13120330.
8.
Kim, A., & Kim, Y. (2020).
Investor sentiment and cryptocurrency volatility: Evidence from social
media. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 21(4), 365377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2020.1734801
9.
Smales, L. A. (2021).
Cryptocurrency volatility and market sentiment: A comparative study. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management, 14(3), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14030112
10.
Yi, S., Xu, Z., & Wang, G. J. (2018).
Modeling volatility of cryptocurrencies using GARCH models.
Applied Economics Letters, 25(21), 14961500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1436141
11.
Platanakis, E., & Urquhart, A. (2020).
Cryptocurrency volatility and portfolio diversification: A
comparative study. *Journal of Portfolio Management, 46*(4), 5468.
https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2020.1.150
12.
Fry, J., & Cheah, E. T. (2019).
Cryptocurrency market crashes: Evidence from volatility and liquidity.
Journal of Financial Stability, 44, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2019.100692
13.
Tiwari, A. K., Jana, et al (2020).
Volatility co-movement between Bitcoin and altcoins. Finance
Research Letters, 35*, 101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.101300
14.
Baker, S. R., Bloom, et al. (2020).
COVID-19 and stock market volatility: A clustering approach.
*Journal of Financial Economics, 138*(2), 620635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.12.006
15.
Bekaert, G., & Wu, G. (2000).
The leverage effect in stock markets: International evidence. Journal of
Finance, 55(3), 13291354. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022- 1082.00242