CBOX vs. BUFC

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

CBOX (Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF) and BUFC (AB Conservative Buffer ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.05 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CBOX charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for BUFC.

Performance

CBOX vs. BUFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF (CBOX) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CBOX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.40%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

BUFC

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: 0.45%
• 6M: 2.74%
• YTD: 3.40%
• 1Y: 7.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.74%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	$1.47M	$1.25M	$1.78M
CBOX Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF	$7.89M	$8.89M	$7.14M

CBOX vs. BUFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CBOX Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF	1.12%
BUFC AB Conservative Buffer ETF	2.54%

Correlation

The correlation between CBOX and BUFC is 0.05, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2026	0.05

Return for Risk

CBOX vs. BUFC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CBOX

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

BUFC

BUFC Risk / Return Rank: 68
BUFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
BUFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
BUFC Omega Ratio Rank: 74
BUFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
BUFC Martin Ratio Rank: 69

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CBOX vs. BUFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF (CBOX) and AB Conservative Buffer ETF (BUFC). 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.

	CBOX	BUFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.63	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.28	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.31	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.00	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	8.37	—

Drawdowns

CBOX vs. BUFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBOX drawdown since its inception was -2.90%, smaller than the maximum BUFC drawdown of -8.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBOX and BUFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBOX	BUFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.90%	-8.29%	+5.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-3.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.30%	-0.13%	-2.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.47%	-0.73%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.86%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CBOX	BUFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.15%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	3.56%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.83%	4.45%	+3.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.83%	5.58%	+2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.83%	5.58%	+2.25%

CBOX vs. BUFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBOX has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than BUFC's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBOX vs. BUFC - Dividend Comparison

Neither CBOX nor BUFC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBOX and BUFC in my portfolio?

CBOX and BUFC have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CBOX or BUFC?

On fees, CBOX is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBOX or BUFC?

CBOX is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BUFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CBOX or BUFC?

CBOX and BUFC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CBOX and BUFC?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for CBOX and 0.69% for BUFC.