CBTJ vs. CCEF

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and CCEF (Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBTJ is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Calamos, while CCEF is a Dividend fund actively managed by Calamos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -36.69% vs 13.29% for CCEF. Their 0.39 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CBTJ charges 0.69%/yr vs 2.74%/yr for CCEF.

Performance

CBTJ vs. CCEF - 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 Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF (CCEF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -19.11% return, which is significantly lower than CCEF's 7.54% return.

CBTJ

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.52%
• 6M: -10.11%
• YTD: -19.11%
• 1Y: -36.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -19.93%

CCEF

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.63%
• 6M: 4.29%
• YTD: 7.54%
• 1Y: 13.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.30%

*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)
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	$73.35K	$163.83K	$333.67K
CCEF Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF	$87.71K	$109.22K	$102.46K

CBTJ vs. CCEF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-19.11%	-11.32%
CCEF Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF	7.54%	9.48%

Correlation

The correlation between CBTJ and CCEF is 0.39, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.39

Return for Risk

CBTJ vs. CCEF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBTJ

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

CCEF

CCEF Risk / Return Rank: 55
CCEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
CCEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
CCEF Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CCEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
CCEF Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

CBTJ vs. CCEF - 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 Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF (CCEF). 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	CCEF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.39	1.59	-2.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.07	2.22	-4.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.77	1.29	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.87	1.72	-2.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.27	7.36	-8.63

CBTJ vs. CCEF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBTJ Sharpe Ratio is -1.39, which is lower than the CCEF Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBTJ and CCEF, 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. CCEF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -42.41%, which is greater than CCEF's maximum drawdown of -13.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and CCEF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBTJ	CCEF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.41%	-13.25%	-29.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.41%	-7.75%	-34.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.96%	0.00%	-40.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.94%	-1.32%	-16.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	28.86%	1.81%	+27.05%

Volatility

CBTJ vs. CCEF - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) has a higher volatility of 3.63% compared to Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF (CCEF) at 2.15%. This indicates that CBTJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCEF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBTJ	CCEF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.63%	2.15%	+1.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.52%	7.18%	+6.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.56%	8.42%	+18.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.64%	10.66%	+13.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.64%	10.66%	+13.98%

CBTJ vs. CCEF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBTJ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than CCEF's 2.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBTJ vs. CCEF - Dividend Comparison

CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, less than CCEF's 8.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.79%	1.45%	0.00%
CCEF Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF	8.00%	8.08%	6.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBTJ and CCEF in my portfolio?

CBTJ and CCEF have a correlation of 0.39, 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 CCEF?

CBTJ has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to CCEF (2.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -42.41% vs CCEF's -13.25%.

Which ETF is better, CBTJ or CCEF?

On 1-year performance, CCEF leads with 13.29% vs -36.69% for CBTJ. On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CCEF has been the lower-risk option at 2.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBTJ or CCEF?

Over the 1-year period, CCEF has performed better with a 13.29% return vs -36.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBTJ or CCEF?

CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 2.74% for CCEF.

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

CCEF has the higher dividend yield at 8.00%, compared with 1.79% for CBTJ.

What is the main difference between CBTJ and CCEF?

CBTJ is categorized as Blockchain, while CCEF is Dividend. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBTJ and 2.74% for CCEF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCEF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs -1.39), 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.