CBTJ vs. ISCMF
CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBTJ is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Calamos, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. CBTJ is actively managed, while ISCMF is passively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -36.69% vs 21.66% for ISCMF. Their -0.04 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. CBTJ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.
Performance
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -19.11% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 11.96% return.
CBTJ
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- 0.52%
- 6M
- -10.11%
- YTD
- -19.11%
- 1Y
- -36.69%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -19.93%
ISCMF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 1.00%
- YTD
- 11.96%
- 1Y
- 21.66%
- 3Y*
- 10.24%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.78%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $73.35K | $163.83K | $333.67K | |
| $0.00 | $7.90K | $54.64K |
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | -19.11% | -11.32% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 11.96% | 11.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBTJ and ISCMF is -0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025 | -0.04 |
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
CBTJ vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank
CBTJ
ISCMF
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - 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 iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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 | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.50 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.84 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.77 | 1.81 | -1.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.87 | 1.59 | -2.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.27 | 4.77 | -6.04 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -42.41%, which is greater than ISCMF's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and ISCMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBTJ | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -42.41% | -25.42% | -16.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -42.41% | -13.68% | -28.73% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.68% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -40.96% | -13.68% | -27.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.94% | -13.31% | -4.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 28.86% | 4.69% | +24.17% |
Volatility
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison
Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) has a higher volatility of 3.63% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 0.00%. This indicates that CBTJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBTJ | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.63% | 0.00% | +3.63% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.52% | 17.04% | -3.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.56% | 19.57% | +6.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.64% | 14.73% | +9.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.64% | 14.73% | +9.91% |
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CBTJ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
CBTJ vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison
CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, while ISCMF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | 1.79% | 1.45% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBTJ and ISCMF have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CBTJ has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to ISCMF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -42.41% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.
On 1-year performance, ISCMF leads with 21.66% vs -36.69% for CBTJ. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 21.66% return vs -36.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CBTJ.
CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.00% for ISCMF.
CBTJ is categorized as Blockchain, while ISCMF is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBTJ and 0.19% for ISCMF.
ISCMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.11 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.
Find the right allocation for CBTJ and ISCMF
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