BLOK vs. CBTJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BLOK (Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BLOK returned 27.49% vs -31.54% for CBTJ. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLOK charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBTJ.

Performance

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLOK achieves a 14.77% return, which is significantly higher than CBTJ's -19.03% return.

BLOK

• 1D: -1.82%
• 1M: 2.14%
• YTD: 14.77%
• 6M: 9.76%
• 1Y: 27.49%
• 3Y*: 48.25%
• 5Y*: 11.69%
• 10Y*: —

CBTJ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -10.16%
• YTD: -19.03%
• 6M: -20.42%
• 1Y: -31.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	14.77%	20.66%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-19.03%	-11.32%

Correlation

The correlation between BLOK and CBTJ is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.71

The correlation between BLOK and CBTJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BLOK vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BLOK

BLOK Risk / Return Rank: 20
BLOK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
BLOK Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
BLOK Omega Ratio Rank: 21
BLOK Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
BLOK Martin Ratio Rank: 17

CBTJ

CBTJ Risk / Return Rank: 2
CBTJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBTJ Martin Ratio Rank: 3

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BLOK	CBTJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	-1.17	+1.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.17	-1.67	+2.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	0.81	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.77	-0.77	+1.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.67	-1.25	+2.92

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLOK Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is higher than the CBTJ Sharpe Ratio of -1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLOK and CBTJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLOK drawdown since its inception was -73.33%, which is greater than CBTJ's maximum drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLOK and CBTJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLOK	CBTJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.33%	-40.98%	-32.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.64%	-40.98%	+5.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.27%	-40.91%	+29.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.99%	-16.03%	-9.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.48%	25.32%	-8.84%

Volatility

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) has a higher volatility of 12.42% compared to Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) at 5.30%. This indicates that BLOK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBTJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLOK	CBTJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.42%	5.30%	+7.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.64%	18.24%	+11.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.10%	27.04%	+12.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.53%	25.36%	+17.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.03%	25.36%	+13.67%

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLOK has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CBTJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLOK vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison

BLOK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, less than CBTJ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	0.62%	0.72%	6.00%	1.15%	0.00%	14.31%	1.88%	2.05%	1.30%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.79%	1.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLOK and CBTJ in my portfolio?

BLOK and CBTJ have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLOK or CBTJ?

BLOK has higher volatility (12.42%) compared to CBTJ (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLOK dropped -73.33% vs CBTJ's -40.98%.

Which ETF is better, BLOK or CBTJ?

On 1-year performance, BLOK leads with 27.49% vs -31.54% for CBTJ. On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLOK or CBTJ?

Over the 1-year period, BLOK has performed better with a 27.49% return vs -31.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLOK or CBTJ?

CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BLOK.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLOK or CBTJ?

CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.62% for BLOK.

What is the main difference between BLOK and CBTJ?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BLOK and 0.69% for CBTJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLOK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs -1.17), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.