CBOO vs. TMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CBOO (Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - October) and TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. CBOO is actively managed, while TMAR is passively managed. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBOO charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TMAR.

Performance

CBOO vs. TMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CBOO) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBOO achieves a 0.10% return, which is significantly lower than TMAR's 12.46% return.

CBOO

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.10%
• 6M: 0.02%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TMAR

• 1D: -2.74%
• 1M: 0.06%
• YTD: 12.46%
• 6M: 12.76%
• 1Y: 24.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CBOO vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBOO Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - October	0.10%	-1.66%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	12.46%	2.14%

Correlation

The correlation between CBOO and TMAR is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2025	0.33

Return for Risk

CBOO vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBOO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 87
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 92
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

CBOO vs. TMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CBOO) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.

	CBOO	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.25	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.19	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.56	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	5.22	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	25.73	—

Drawdowns

CBOO vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBOO drawdown since its inception was -2.34%, smaller than the maximum TMAR drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBOO and TMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBOO	TMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.34%	-9.93%	+7.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.58%	-2.74%	+1.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.60%	-0.72%	-0.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.95%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CBOO	TMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.23%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	9.98%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07%	10.91%	-8.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.07%	12.32%	-10.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.07%	12.32%	-10.25%

CBOO vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBOO has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBOO vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

CBOO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, while TMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CBOO Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - October	0.57%	0.57%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBOO and TMAR in my portfolio?

CBOO and TMAR have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CBOO or TMAR?

On fees, CBOO is cheaper at 0.69% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBOO or TMAR?

CBOO is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CBOO or TMAR?

CBOO has the higher dividend yield at 0.57%, compared with 0.00% for TMAR.

What is the main difference between CBOO and TMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBOO and 0.95% for TMAR.