CBTJ vs. NODE
CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and NODE (VanEck Onchain Economy ETF) are both Blockchain funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -30.36% vs 71.73% for NODE. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.69% expense ratio.
Performance
CBTJ vs. NODE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -16.58% return, which is significantly lower than NODE's 33.28% return.
CBTJ
- 1D
- -1.44%
- 1M
- -10.52%
- YTD
- -16.58%
- 6M
- -22.65%
- 1Y
- -30.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NODE
- 1D
- -1.79%
- 1M
- 10.04%
- YTD
- 33.28%
- 6M
- 21.22%
- 1Y
- 71.73%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CBTJ vs. NODE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | -16.58% | -14.78% |
NODE VanEck Onchain Economy ETF | 33.28% | 32.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between CBTJ and NODE is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2025 | 0.68 |
The correlation between CBTJ and NODE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. NODE — Risk / Return Rank
CBTJ
NODE
CBTJ vs. NODE - 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 VanEck Onchain Economy ETF (NODE). 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.
| CBTJ | NODE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.82 | 1.26 | -0.44 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.78 | 2.04 | -2.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.29 | 4.50 | -5.78 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CBTJ | NODE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.12 | 1.59 | -2.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.80 | 1.62 | -2.41 |
Drawdowns
CBTJ vs. NODE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -39.12%, which is greater than NODE's maximum drawdown of -35.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and NODE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CBTJ | NODE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.12% | -35.35% | -3.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -39.12% | -35.35% | -3.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -39.12% | -2.42% | -36.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.13% | -11.30% | -3.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 23.62% | 16.00% | +7.62% |
Volatility
CBTJ vs. NODE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) is 4.87%, while VanEck Onchain Economy ETF (NODE) has a volatility of 12.39%. This indicates that CBTJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NODE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CBTJ | NODE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.87% | 12.39% | -7.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.34% | 34.83% | -15.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.13% | 45.44% | -18.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.64% | 44.59% | -18.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.64% | 44.59% | -18.95% |
CBTJ vs. NODE - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CBTJ and NODE have an expense ratio of 0.69%.
Dividends
CBTJ vs. NODE - Dividend Comparison
CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, more than NODE's 0.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | 1.74% | 1.45% |
NODE VanEck Onchain Economy ETF | 0.84% | 1.12% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CBTJ and NODE have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NODE has higher volatility (12.39%) compared to CBTJ (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -39.12% vs NODE's -35.35%.
On 1-year performance, NODE leads with 71.73% vs -30.36% for CBTJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.69% expense ratio. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, NODE has performed better with a 71.73% return vs -30.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CBTJ and NODE have the same expense ratio: 0.69% per year.
CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 0.84% for NODE.
They also come from different issuers: Calamos and VanEck.
NODE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs -1.12), 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 NODE
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