CAML vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CAML (Congress Large Cap Growth ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CAML is actively managed, while BIBL is passively managed. Over the past year, CAML returned 10.28% vs 38.99% for BIBL. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CAML charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

CAML vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAML achieves a 3.12% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.90% return.

CAML

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.76%
• YTD: 3.12%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 10.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIBL

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 4.70%
• YTD: 24.90%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 38.99%
• 3Y*: 22.52%
• 5Y*: 10.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

CAML vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	3.12%	12.43%	23.24%	10.11%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.90%	17.27%	12.49%	9.39%

Correlation

The correlation between CAML and BIBL is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2023	0.80

The correlation between CAML and BIBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CAML vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CAML	BIBL
Technology	44.7%	31.9%
Industrials	11.8%	27.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	0.3%
Communication Services	9.6%	-
Financial Services	8.7%	8.5%
Healthcare	6.2%	4.1%
Utilities	3.4%	3.3%
Real Estate	2.4%	13.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	0.4%
Energy	2.2%	6.0%
Basic Materials	2.0%	4.3%

Return for Risk

CAML vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAML

CAML Risk / Return Rank: 20
CAML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
CAML Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CAML Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CAML Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CAML Martin Ratio Rank: 21

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 84
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

CAML vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	CAML	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.68	2.39	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	3.17	-2.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.41	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.70	4.38	-3.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.27	18.61	-16.35

CAML vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAML Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAML and BIBL, 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

CAML vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAML drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, smaller than the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAML and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAML	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.06%	-36.12%	+15.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.86%	-8.94%	-5.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.39%	-1.92%	-1.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.07%	-7.00%	+3.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.55%	2.10%	+2.45%

Volatility

CAML vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) is 5.98%, while Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) has a volatility of 6.81%. This indicates that CAML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAML	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.98%	6.81%	-0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.19%	13.65%	-1.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.38%	16.44%	-1.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.87%	19.76%	-1.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.87%	21.11%	-3.24%

CAML vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAML has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAML vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

CAML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BIBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.94%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CAML and BIBL in my portfolio?

CAML and BIBL have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAML or BIBL?

BIBL has higher volatility (6.81%) compared to CAML (5.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAML dropped -21.06% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, CAML or BIBL?

On 1-year performance, BIBL leads with 38.99% vs 10.28% for CAML. On fees, BIBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CAML has been the lower-risk option at 5.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAML or BIBL?

Over the 1-year period, BIBL has performed better with a 38.99% return vs 10.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAML or BIBL?

BIBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CAML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CAML or BIBL?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.00% for CAML.

What is the main difference between CAML and BIBL?

They also come from different issuers: Congress and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CAML and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 0.68), 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.