Got $1,500? Is It Better to Buy Bitcoin, or Viking Therapeutics?

Key Points
Viking Therapeutics has a very promising candidate in its pipeline.
Under certain conditions, that could make it grow a lot.
Bitcoin's path to growth isn't as complicated, but it could be very volatile.
- 10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin ›
Every now and then, two investments land in front of you that look nothing alike but pose the same underlying questions: How much uncertainty are you willing to tolerate, and in what form? In that vein, Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) and Viking Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VKTX) sit at opposite ends of the asset spectrum, with one being a cryptocurrency, and the other a pre-revenue biotech with some valuable intellectual property that's chasing a seat at the anti-obesity drug table. Both are genuinely compelling, but both carry real ways to lose money.
So what makes more sense for someone who doesn't own either yet? Let's see which asset is the better pick for a $1,500 investment.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Viking's pitch is real, but so is the gauntlet ahead
Viking's lead candidate, VK2735, uses the same mechanism of action as Eli Lilly's blockbuster drug Zepbound.
The program's phase 2 clinical trial results showed meaningful weight reduction, with a tolerable side effect profile, and the company has since kicked off a pair of phase 3 studies. It's being tested in two formulations: one that's injected, and one that's taken orally; the oral formulation heads to its phase 3 trials in the third quarter of 2026.
The biotech has $706 million in cash, equivalents, and short-term investments, which should cover its costs until it has more data in hand, given that its trailing-12-month operating expenses are $393 million. If the data are consistent with the positive findings in the earlier trials, the stock will jump a lot, and VK2735 will be on its way toward submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for evaluation and potential approval and commercialization thereafter. And that's the reason someone might want to buy the stock; anti-obesity medicines are the single hottest area of the biopharma and biotech stock world right now.
The problem is that Viking is, at best, going to be entering a crowded and very competitive market if it manages to commercialize its lead candidate. Novo Nordisk's oral formulation of its weight loss drug Wegovy received FDA approval in late December and launched commercially earlier this year, whereas Eli Lilly's oral candidate for the same indication may be approved later this year. Those incumbents may impede what any newcomer can accomplish for their shareholders.
At worst, Viking's weight-loss treatment won't produce the clinical results it needs to get its candidates approved, which would severely hammer its stock price.
Bitcoin's thesis doesn't need a single catalyst
To grow, Bitcoin doesn't need phase 3 data, nor any partnership announcements, drug pricing deals, or a regulatory green light of any kind. Nor can its competitors block its growth, as its value is driven mainly by its supply constraints. It only needs to continue its new supply growth to slow, and to experience some level of demand, the former of which is encoded in its protocol.
Regarding demand, U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) had $614 million in capital inflows on March 4 alone, and there's currently about $57 billion in cumulative inflows into those ETFs. The asset issuers who offer the ETFs are thus net buyers of the coin, as they pass through exposure to investors who buy the ETFs. And that's only one channel enabling Bitcoin to grow; investors can also buy it directly, though no matter how they procure it they will face a tightening supply environment over time due to the coin's halvings, which occur every four years and cut the rate at which new coins are issued in half.
But Bitcoin is in no way riskless. It's quite volatile, and it's also very exposed to market sentiment as well as to global liquidity, not to mention macroeconomic factors. The most important factor is that over the very long run, the downside risks tend to get overwhelmed by the upward price pressure exerted by a limited supply clashing with whatever demand there is.
So which asset is the better one to buy with $1,500?
Viking could outperform dramatically if its phase 3 trial succeeds and it carves out commercial space. But it requires a chain of things to go right.
Bitcoin's path higher is messier in the short term and probably is less explosive in the best case, but it needs to overcome fewer obstacles to thrive, and it's done that many times before. Thus, Bitcoin is the better pick for most investors, especially if they haven't diversified their portfolios with some crypto yet.
Should you buy stock in Bitcoin right now?
Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $495,179!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,058,743!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 898% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 22, 2026.
Alex Carchidi has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk and Viking Therapeutics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.