CANQ vs. SCHG
CANQ (Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CANQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Calamos, while SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. CANQ is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past year, CANQ returned 17.89% vs 24.64% for SCHG. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CANQ charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.
Performance
CANQ vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CANQ achieves a 7.60% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 6.42% return.
CANQ
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 5.62%
- YTD
- 7.60%
- 6M
- 5.52%
- 1Y
- 17.89%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SCHG
- 1D
- -1.23%
- 1M
- 4.81%
- YTD
- 6.42%
- 6M
- 5.81%
- 1Y
- 24.64%
- 3Y*
- 25.02%
- 5Y*
- 15.59%
- 10Y*
- 18.77%
CANQ vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF | 7.60% | 11.69% | 19.48% |
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | 6.42% | 17.50% | 26.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between CANQ and SCHG is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2024 | 0.90 |
The correlation between CANQ and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
CANQ vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CANQ
SCHG
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
CANQ
SCHG
Basic Materials
CANQ
-
SCHG
Communication Services
CANQ
-
SCHG
Consumer Cyclical
CANQ
-
SCHG
Consumer Defensive
CANQ
-
SCHG
Energy
CANQ
-
SCHG
Healthcare
CANQ
-
SCHG
Industrials
CANQ
-
SCHG
Real Estate
CANQ
-
SCHG
Technology
CANQ
-
SCHG
Utilities
CANQ
-
SCHG
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CANQ vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank
CANQ
SCHG
CANQ vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.
| CANQ | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.28 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.67 | 1.51 | +0.16 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.17 | 5.04 | +0.13 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CANQ | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.67 | 1.60 | +0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.70 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.87 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.35 | 0.84 | +0.51 |
Drawdowns
CANQ vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CANQ drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANQ and SCHG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CANQ | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.79% | -34.59% | +21.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.77% | -16.41% | +5.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -23.39% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -34.59% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -34.59% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.37% | -1.78% | +1.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.95% | -5.20% | +2.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.47% | 4.90% | -1.43% |
Volatility
CANQ vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison
Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 3.61%. This indicates that CANQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CANQ | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.86% | 3.61% | +0.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.52% | 11.62% | -4.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.76% | 15.50% | -4.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.69% | 22.27% | -9.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.69% | 21.55% | -8.86% |
CANQ vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison
CANQ has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.
Dividends
CANQ vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison
CANQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%, more than SCHG's 0.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CANQ Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF | 4.36% | 5.02% | 4.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | 0.36% | 0.36% | 0.39% | 0.46% | 0.55% | 0.42% | 0.52% | 0.82% | 1.27% | 1.01% | 1.04% | 1.22% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.90, CANQ and SCHG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
CANQ has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to SCHG (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANQ dropped -12.79% vs SCHG's -34.59%.
On 1-year performance, SCHG leads with 24.64% vs 17.89% for CANQ. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 24.64% return vs 17.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CANQ.
CANQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.36%, compared with 0.36% for SCHG.
CANQ is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while SCHG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CANQ and 0.04% for SCHG.
CANQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.60), 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.
Find the right allocation for CANQ and SCHG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer