CBTJ vs. AFIF

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and AFIF (Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBTJ is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Calamos, while AFIF is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Regents Park Funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -34.58% vs 4.96% for AFIF. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBTJ charges 0.69%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for AFIF.

Performance

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) and Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -20.32% return, which is significantly lower than AFIF's 1.77% return.

CBTJ

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: -11.63%
• YTD: -20.32%
• 6M: -20.85%
• 1Y: -34.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AFIF

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 0.59%
• YTD: 1.77%
• 6M: 1.77%
• 1Y: 4.96%
• 3Y*: 7.31%
• 5Y*: 3.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-20.32%	-11.32%
AFIF Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF	1.77%	5.73%

Correlation

The correlation between CBTJ and AFIF is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.13

Return for Risk

CBTJ vs. AFIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBTJ

CBTJ Risk / Return Rank: 1
CBTJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
CBTJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBTJ Martin Ratio Rank: 3

AFIF

AFIF Risk / Return Rank: 70
AFIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
AFIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
AFIF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
AFIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
AFIF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) and Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF). 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.

	CBTJ	AFIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.29	1.82	-3.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.89	2.63	-4.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	1.38	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.83	3.06	-3.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.35	13.49	-14.85

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBTJ Sharpe Ratio is -1.29, which is lower than the AFIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBTJ and AFIF, 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

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -41.84%, which is greater than AFIF's maximum drawdown of -10.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and AFIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBTJ	AFIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.84%	-10.29%	-31.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.84%	-1.63%	-40.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.79%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-8.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-41.84%	0.00%	-41.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.18%	-2.21%	-13.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.59%	0.37%	+25.22%

Volatility

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) has a higher volatility of 5.25% compared to Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF (AFIF) at 0.41%. This indicates that CBTJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AFIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBTJ	AFIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.25%	0.41%	+4.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.07%	1.98%	+16.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.00%	2.74%	+24.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.31%	4.40%	+20.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.31%	6.24%	+19.07%

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBTJ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than AFIF's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBTJ vs. AFIF - Dividend Comparison

CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, less than AFIF's 3.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AFIF Anfield Universal Fixed Income ETF	3.72%	3.52%	5.61%	5.91%	3.49%	1.73%	1.25%	2.54%	0.69%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.82%	1.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBTJ and AFIF in my portfolio?

CBTJ and AFIF have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CBTJ or AFIF?

CBTJ has higher volatility (5.25%) compared to AFIF (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -41.84% vs AFIF's -10.29%.

Which ETF is better, CBTJ or AFIF?

On 1-year performance, AFIF leads with 4.96% vs -34.58% for CBTJ. On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, AFIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBTJ or AFIF?

Over the 1-year period, AFIF has performed better with a 4.96% return vs -34.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBTJ or AFIF?

CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for AFIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CBTJ or AFIF?

AFIF has the higher dividend yield at 3.72%, compared with 1.82% for CBTJ.

What is the main difference between CBTJ and AFIF?

CBTJ is categorized as Blockchain, while AFIF is Multisector Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Regents Park Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBTJ and 1.08% for AFIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFIF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs -1.29), 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.