CEFS vs. QRFT
CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) and QRFT (QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while QRFT is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEFS returned 14.29%/yr vs 10.89%/yr for QRFT. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFS charges 2.61%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for QRFT.
Performance
CEFS vs. QRFT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEFS achieves a 15.16% return, which is significantly higher than QRFT's 9.72% return.
CEFS
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 4.16%
- YTD
- 15.16%
- 6M
- 16.21%
- 1Y
- 26.43%
- 3Y*
- 22.09%
- 5Y*
- 14.29%
- 10Y*
- —
QRFT
- 1D
- -1.86%
- 1M
- -1.09%
- YTD
- 9.72%
- 6M
- 8.61%
- 1Y
- 24.67%
- 3Y*
- 20.50%
- 5Y*
- 10.89%
- 10Y*
- —
CEFS vs. QRFT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 15.16% | 16.67% | 23.48% | 20.99% | -7.08% | 17.86% | 3.40% | 7.88% |
QRFT QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF | 9.72% | 17.95% | 21.36% | 24.16% | -22.69% | 22.74% | 40.05% | 15.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEFS and QRFT is 0.58, 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 | 0.58 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2019 | 0.54 |
The correlation between CEFS and QRFT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.64 - 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
CEFS vs. QRFT — Risk / Return Rank
CEFS
QRFT
CEFS vs. QRFT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) and QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF (QRFT). 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.
| CEFS | QRFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.32 | +0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.68 | 2.72 | +1.97 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.98 | 11.53 | +6.46 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEFS vs. QRFT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEFS drawdown since its inception was -38.99%, which is greater than QRFT's maximum drawdown of -30.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFS and QRFT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEFS | QRFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.99% | -30.19% | -8.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.67% | -9.12% | +3.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.37% | -19.99% | +6.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.85% | -28.20% | +11.35% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.23% | -2.89% | +2.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.65% | -6.76% | +3.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.47% | 2.15% | -0.68% |
Volatility
CEFS vs. QRFT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) is 4.04%, while QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF (QRFT) has a volatility of 5.79%. This indicates that CEFS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QRFT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEFS | QRFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.04% | 5.79% | -1.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.01% | 11.14% | -2.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.34% | 14.00% | -3.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.16% | 17.48% | -4.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.33% | 20.13% | -4.80% |
CEFS vs. QRFT - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEFS has a 2.61% expense ratio, which is higher than QRFT's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEFS vs. QRFT - Dividend Comparison
CEFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.01%, more than QRFT's 0.26% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 7.01% | 7.84% | 8.79% | 9.20% | 11.32% | 10.73% | 8.61% | 8.10% | 10.43% | 5.02% |
QRFT QRAFT AI Enhanced U.S. Large Cap ETF | 0.26% | 0.27% | 0.52% | 0.77% | 0.83% | 0.05% | 1.81% | 4.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEFS and QRFT have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QRFT has higher volatility (5.79%) compared to CEFS (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFS dropped -38.99% vs QRFT's -30.19%.
On 5-year performance, CEFS leads with 14.29% vs 10.89% for QRFT. On fees, QRFT is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, CEFS has been the lower-risk option at 4.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CEFS has performed better with a 14.29% return vs 10.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QRFT is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.
CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.01%, compared with 0.26% for QRFT.
CEFS is categorized as Event Driven, while QRFT is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 2.61% for CEFS and 0.75% for QRFT.
CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 1.77), 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 CEFS and QRFT
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