BSTZ vs. CEFS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BSTZ (BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II) is a stock, while CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) is Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. Over the past 5 years, BSTZ returned 5.21%/yr vs 14.34%/yr for CEFS. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II (BSTZ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSTZ achieves a 42.73% return, which is significantly higher than CEFS's 15.43% return.

BSTZ

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 8.66%
• YTD: 42.73%
• 6M: 40.98%
• 1Y: 77.01%
• 3Y*: 34.40%
• 5Y*: 5.21%
• 10Y*: —

CEFS

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 4.40%
• YTD: 15.43%
• 6M: 17.14%
• 1Y: 27.83%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 14.34%
• 10Y*: —

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

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BSTZ BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II	42.73%	25.06%	37.49%	18.72%	-55.34%	12.71%	87.46%	5.04%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	15.43%	16.67%	23.48%	20.99%	-7.08%	17.86%	3.40%	6.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BSTZ and CEFS is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2019	0.52

The correlation between BSTZ and CEFS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BSTZ vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

BSTZ

BSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 96
BSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
BSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
BSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
BSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
BSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 97

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 88
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 87
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II (BSTZ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.

	BSTZ	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.15	2.70	+0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	3.88	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.51	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.36	4.93	+3.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.86	18.94	+5.93

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSTZ Sharpe Ratio is 3.15, which is comparable to the CEFS Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSTZ and CEFS, 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

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSTZ drawdown since its inception was -60.51%, which is greater than CEFS's maximum drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSTZ and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSTZ	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.51%	-38.99%	-21.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.26%	-5.67%	-3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.31%	-13.37%	-11.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.51%	-16.85%	-43.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.08%	0.00%	-2.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.39%	-3.65%	-23.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.11%	1.47%	+1.64%

Volatility

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II (BSTZ) has a higher volatility of 11.11% compared to Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) at 4.03%. This indicates that BSTZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSTZ	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.11%	4.03%	+7.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.21%	9.00%	+12.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.63%	10.35%	+14.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.79%	13.16%	+14.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.29%	15.34%	+14.95%

Dividends

BSTZ vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

BSTZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.96%, more than CEFS's 6.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BSTZ BlackRock Science and Technology Trust II	7.96%	12.46%	9.75%	10.90%	14.73%	5.14%	3.42%	2.44%	0.00%	0.00%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	6.99%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSTZ and CEFS in my portfolio?

BSTZ and CEFS have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BSTZ or CEFS?

BSTZ has higher volatility (11.11%) compared to CEFS (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSTZ dropped -60.51% vs CEFS's -38.99%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.15 vs 2.70), 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.