CEFS vs. THNQ
CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) and THNQ (ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts, while THNQ is a Technology Equities fund tracking the ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence Index. CEFS is actively managed, while THNQ is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEFS returned 14.29%/yr vs 15.08%/yr for THNQ. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFS charges 2.61%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for THNQ.
Performance
CEFS vs. THNQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEFS achieves a 15.16% return, which is significantly lower than THNQ's 36.10% return.
CEFS
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 4.16%
- YTD
- 15.16%
- 6M
- 16.21%
- 1Y
- 26.43%
- 3Y*
- 22.09%
- 5Y*
- 14.29%
- 10Y*
- —
THNQ
- 1D
- -3.25%
- 1M
- 2.00%
- YTD
- 36.10%
- 6M
- 33.52%
- 1Y
- 66.41%
- 3Y*
- 35.10%
- 5Y*
- 15.08%
- 10Y*
- —
CEFS vs. THNQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 15.16% | 16.67% | 23.48% | 20.99% | -7.08% | 17.86% | 26.76% |
THNQ ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF | 36.10% | 29.83% | 18.82% | 56.81% | -39.84% | 9.10% | 60.92% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEFS and THNQ is 0.51, 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 | 0.51 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2020 | 0.51 |
The correlation between CEFS and THNQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57 - 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. THNQ — Risk / Return Rank
CEFS
THNQ
CEFS vs. THNQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) and ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (THNQ). 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 | THNQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.84 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.37 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.68 | 3.63 | +1.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.98 | 11.47 | +6.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEFS vs. THNQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEFS drawdown since its inception was -38.99%, smaller than the maximum THNQ drawdown of -50.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFS and THNQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEFS | THNQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.99% | -50.56% | +11.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.67% | -18.39% | +12.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.37% | -29.88% | +16.51% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -16.85% | -50.56% | +33.71% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.23% | -7.60% | +7.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.65% | -15.00% | +11.35% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.47% | 5.81% | -4.34% |
Volatility
CEFS vs. THNQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) is 4.04%, while ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (THNQ) has a volatility of 13.15%. This indicates that CEFS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than THNQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEFS | THNQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.04% | 13.15% | -9.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.01% | 23.09% | -14.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.34% | 28.49% | -18.15% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.16% | 29.48% | -16.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.33% | 28.89% | -13.56% |
CEFS vs. THNQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEFS has a 2.61% expense ratio, which is higher than THNQ's 0.68% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEFS vs. THNQ - Dividend Comparison
CEFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.01%, more than THNQ's 0.15% 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% |
THNQ ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF | 0.15% | 0.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEFS and THNQ have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
THNQ has higher volatility (13.15%) compared to CEFS (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFS dropped -38.99% vs THNQ's -50.56%.
On 5-year performance, THNQ leads with 15.08% vs 14.29% for CEFS. On fees, THNQ is cheaper at 0.68% 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, THNQ has performed better with a 15.08% return vs 14.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
THNQ is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.
CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.01%, compared with 0.15% for THNQ.
CEFS is categorized as Event Driven, while THNQ is Technology Equities. Their fees differ too: 2.61% for CEFS and 0.68% for THNQ.
CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 2.34), 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 THNQ
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