CEFS vs. CCEF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) and CCEF (Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while CCEF is a Dividend fund actively managed by Calamos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CEFS returned 25.00% vs 15.55% for CCEF. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFS charges 1.29%/yr vs 2.74%/yr for CCEF.

Performance

CEFS vs. CCEF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) 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, CEFS achieves a 13.75% return, which is significantly higher than CCEF's 5.73% return.

CEFS

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: 4.35%
• YTD: 13.75%
• 6M: 15.64%
• 1Y: 25.00%
• 3Y*: 22.04%
• 5Y*: 13.85%
• 10Y*: —

CCEF

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: 1.52%
• YTD: 5.73%
• 6M: 6.83%
• 1Y: 15.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CEFS vs. CCEF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	13.75%	16.67%	23.94%
CCEF Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF	5.73%	13.47%	18.80%

Correlation

The correlation between CEFS and CCEF is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2024	0.69

The correlation between CEFS and CCEF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEFS vs. CCEF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEFS	CCEF
Financial Services	48.9%	30.7%
Technology	12.4%	14.1%
Energy	11.2%	18.9%
Industrials	6.7%	5.9%
Healthcare	4.6%	7.4%
Utilities	4.2%	3.7%
Communication Services	4.1%	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	3.3%	4.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.6%	3.9%
Real Estate	1.2%	4.3%

Return for Risk

CEFS vs. CCEF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 80
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CCEF

CCEF Risk / Return Rank: 54
CCEF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
CCEF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CCEF Omega Ratio Rank: 61
CCEF Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CCEF Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

CEFS vs. CCEF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) 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.

	CEFS	CCEF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	1.97	+0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	2.76	+0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.37	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.43	2.02	+2.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.26	8.77	+8.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEFS vs. CCEF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEFS Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the CCEF Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEFS 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEFS	CCEF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.53	1.97	+0.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	1.50	-0.70

Drawdowns

CEFS vs. CCEF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEFS drawdown since its inception was -38.99%, which is greater than CCEF's maximum drawdown of -13.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFS and CCEF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEFS	CCEF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.99%	-13.25%	-25.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.67%	-7.75%	+2.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.85%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.51%	-0.64%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-1.35%	-2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.45%	1.78%	-0.33%

Volatility

CEFS vs. CCEF - Volatility Comparison

Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) has a higher volatility of 3.37% compared to Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF (CCEF) at 2.32%. This indicates that CEFS'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

	CEFS	CCEF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.37%	2.32%	+1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.56%	6.66%	+1.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.95%	7.94%	+2.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.08%	10.78%	+2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.33%	10.78%	+4.55%

CEFS vs. CCEF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEFS has a 1.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CCEF's 2.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEFS vs. CCEF - Dividend Comparison

CEFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.10%, less than CCEF's 7.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CCEF Calamos CEF Income & Arbitrage ETF	7.98%	8.08%	6.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.10%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEFS and CCEF in my portfolio?

CEFS and CCEF have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CEFS or CCEF?

CEFS has higher volatility (3.37%) compared to CCEF (2.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFS dropped -38.99% vs CCEF's -13.25%.

Which ETF is better, CEFS or CCEF?

On 1-year performance, CEFS leads with 25.00% vs 15.55% for CCEF. On fees, CEFS is cheaper at 1.29% per year. On volatility, CCEF has been the lower-risk option at 2.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CEFS or CCEF?

Over the 1-year period, CEFS has performed better with a 25.00% return vs 15.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEFS or CCEF?

CEFS is cheaper with a 1.29% expense ratio, compared with 2.74% for CCEF.

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

CCEF has the higher dividend yield at 7.98%, compared with 7.10% for CEFS.

What is the main difference between CEFS and CCEF?

CEFS is categorized as Event Driven, while CCEF is Dividend. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 1.29% for CEFS and 2.74% for CCEF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 1.97), 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.