CBTJ vs. TUSB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) and TUSB (Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBTJ is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Calamos, while TUSB is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Thrivent. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBTJ returned -30.36% vs 4.62% for TUSB. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. CBTJ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for TUSB.

Performance

CBTJ vs. TUSB - 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 Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF (TUSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBTJ achieves a -16.58% return, which is significantly lower than TUSB's 1.78% return.

CBTJ

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -10.52%
• YTD: -16.58%
• 6M: -22.65%
• 1Y: -30.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TUSB

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.44%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 2.09%
• 1Y: 4.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-16.58%	-10.82%
TUSB Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF	1.78%	4.14%

Correlation

The correlation between CBTJ and TUSB is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.02

Return for Risk

CBTJ vs. TUSB — 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

TUSB

TUSB Risk / Return Rank: 98
TUSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
TUSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
TUSB Omega Ratio Rank: 98
TUSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
TUSB Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. TUSB - 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 Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF (TUSB). 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	TUSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.12	5.03	-6.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.59	8.97	-10.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.82	2.24	-1.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.78	18.74	-19.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.29	79.65	-80.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBTJ Sharpe Ratio is -1.12, which is lower than the TUSB Sharpe Ratio of 5.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBTJ and TUSB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CBTJ	TUSB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.12	5.03	-6.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.80	3.73	-4.53

Drawdowns

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBTJ drawdown since its inception was -39.12%, which is greater than TUSB's maximum drawdown of -0.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBTJ and TUSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBTJ	TUSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.12%	-0.51%	-38.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.12%	-0.25%	-38.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-39.12%	-0.13%	-38.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.13%	-0.06%	-15.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	23.62%	0.06%	+23.56%

Volatility

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) has a higher volatility of 4.87% compared to Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF (TUSB) at 0.33%. This indicates that CBTJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TUSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBTJ	TUSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.87%	0.33%	+4.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.34%	0.66%	+18.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.13%	0.92%	+26.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.64%	1.25%	+24.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.64%	1.25%	+24.39%

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBTJ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than TUSB's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBTJ vs. TUSB - Dividend Comparison

CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, less than TUSB's 4.26% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.74%	1.45%
TUSB Thrivent Ultra Short Bond ETF	4.26%	3.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBTJ and TUSB in my portfolio?

CBTJ and TUSB have a correlation of -0.05, 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 TUSB?

CBTJ has higher volatility (4.87%) compared to TUSB (0.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBTJ dropped -39.12% vs TUSB's -0.51%.

Which ETF is better, CBTJ or TUSB?

On 1-year performance, TUSB leads with 4.62% vs -30.36% for CBTJ. On fees, TUSB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, TUSB has been the lower-risk option at 0.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBTJ or TUSB?

Over the 1-year period, TUSB has performed better with a 4.62% return vs -30.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBTJ or TUSB?

TUSB is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CBTJ.

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

TUSB has the higher dividend yield at 4.26%, compared with 1.74% for CBTJ.

What is the main difference between CBTJ and TUSB?

CBTJ is categorized as Blockchain, while TUSB is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Thrivent. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CBTJ and 0.20% for TUSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TUSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.03 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.