CBTJ vs. QBF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and QBF (Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly) are both Blockchain funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -31.54% vs -37.30% for QBF. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CBTJ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QBF.

Performance

CBTJ vs. QBF - 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 Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -19.03% return, which is significantly higher than QBF's -27.01% return.

CBTJ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -10.16%
• YTD: -19.03%
• 6M: -20.42%
• 1Y: -31.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QBF

• 1D: -3.18%
• 1M: -14.78%
• YTD: -27.01%
• 6M: -27.39%
• 1Y: -37.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CBTJ vs. QBF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-19.03%	-11.34%
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	-27.01%	-14.76%

Correlation

The correlation between CBTJ and QBF is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025	0.96

The correlation between CBTJ and QBF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CBTJ vs. QBF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBTJ

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

QBF

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

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. QBF - 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 Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF). 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	QBF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.17	-1.38	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.67	-2.08	+0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	0.78	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.77	-0.81	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.25	-1.43	+0.18

CBTJ vs. QBF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBTJ Sharpe Ratio is -1.17, which is comparable to the QBF Sharpe Ratio of -1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBTJ and QBF, 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. QBF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -40.98%, smaller than the maximum QBF drawdown of -46.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and QBF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBTJ	QBF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.98%	-46.35%	+5.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-40.98%	-46.35%	+5.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.91%	-45.44%	+4.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.03%	-17.82%	+1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.32%	26.21%	-0.89%

Volatility

CBTJ vs. QBF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) is 5.30%, while Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) has a volatility of 10.57%. This indicates that CBTJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBTJ	QBF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.30%	10.57%	-5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.24%	20.27%	-2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.04%	27.20%	-0.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.36%	29.01%	-3.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.36%	29.01%	-3.65%

CBTJ vs. QBF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBTJ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than QBF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBTJ vs. QBF - Dividend Comparison

CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, less than QBF's 1.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.79%	1.45%
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	1.89%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBTJ and QBF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, CBTJ and QBF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CBTJ or QBF?

QBF has higher volatility (10.57%) compared to CBTJ (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -40.98% vs QBF's -46.35%.

Which ETF is better, CBTJ or QBF?

On 1-year performance, CBTJ leads with -31.54% vs -37.30% for QBF. On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBTJ or QBF?

Over the 1-year period, CBTJ has performed better with a -31.54% return vs -37.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBTJ or QBF?

CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QBF.

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

QBF has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.79% for CBTJ.

What is the main difference between CBTJ and QBF?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBTJ and 0.79% for QBF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CBTJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.17 vs -1.38), 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.