CNBS vs. QQQS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNBS (Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF) and QQQS (Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNBS is a Cannabis fund actively managed by Amplify, while QQQS is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index. CNBS is actively managed, while QQQS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNBS returned -0.72%/yr vs 16.95%/yr for QQQS. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNBS charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQQS.

Performance

CNBS vs. QQQS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNBS achieves a 4.70% return, which is significantly lower than QQQS's 29.69% return.

CNBS

• 1D: 6.54%
• 1M: 0.77%
• YTD: 4.70%
• 6M: 26.27%
• 1Y: 91.63%
• 3Y*: -0.72%
• 5Y*: -32.48%
• 10Y*: —

QQQS

• 1D: 1.90%
• 1M: 6.24%
• YTD: 29.69%
• 6M: 27.78%
• 1Y: 82.03%
• 3Y*: 16.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CNBS vs. QQQS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	4.70%	15.33%	-29.41%	-16.11%	-18.08%
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	29.69%	23.03%	10.20%	-1.94%	6.56%

Correlation

The correlation between CNBS and QQQS is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2022	0.39

CNBS vs. QQQS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNBS	QQQS
Healthcare	63.1%	41.0%
Real Estate	13.8%	-
Technology	10.7%	42.1%
Consumer Defensive	7.0%	1.4%
Consumer Cyclical	3.4%	5.2%
Financial Services	1.9%	0.0%
Industrials	0.1%	4.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Energy	-	2.2%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CNBS vs. QQQS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNBS

CNBS Risk / Return Rank: 33
CNBS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CNBS Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CNBS Omega Ratio Rank: 37
CNBS Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CNBS Martin Ratio Rank: 25

QQQS

QQQS Risk / Return Rank: 87
QQQS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
QQQS Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QQQS Omega Ratio Rank: 76
QQQS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
QQQS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

CNBS vs. QQQS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). 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.

	CNBS	QQQS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.88	3.07	-2.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	3.85	-1.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.45	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	6.05	-4.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.30	20.20	-16.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNBS vs. QQQS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNBS Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the QQQS Sharpe Ratio of 3.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNBS and QQQS, 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

	CNBS	QQQS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88	3.07	-2.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.39	0.65	-1.04

Drawdowns

CNBS vs. QQQS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNBS drawdown since its inception was -95.71%, which is greater than QQQS's maximum drawdown of -38.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNBS and QQQS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNBS	QQQS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.71%	-38.06%	-57.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-51.25%	-13.63%	-37.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-73.41%	-34.32%	-39.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-93.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-90.88%	-0.69%	-90.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-71.27%	-13.25%	-58.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	27.83%	4.07%	+23.76%

Volatility

CNBS vs. QQQS - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) has a higher volatility of 18.65% compared to Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) at 7.46%. This indicates that CNBS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQQS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNBS	QQQS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.65%	7.46%	+11.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	76.84%	18.55%	+58.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	105.28%	26.84%	+78.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.80%	28.34%	+36.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.37%	28.34%	+33.03%

CNBS vs. QQQS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNBS has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQS's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNBS vs. QQQS - Dividend Comparison

CNBS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	0.00%	0.00%	43.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.58%	0.58%
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	2.68%	3.48%	0.80%	0.68%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNBS and QQQS in my portfolio?

CNBS and QQQS have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CNBS or QQQS?

CNBS has higher volatility (18.65%) compared to QQQS (7.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNBS dropped -95.71% vs QQQS's -38.06%.

Which ETF is better, CNBS or QQQS?

On 3-year performance, QQQS leads with 16.95% vs -0.72% for CNBS. On fees, QQQS is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QQQS has been the lower-risk option at 7.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNBS or QQQS?

Over the 3-year period, QQQS has performed better with a 16.95% return vs -0.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNBS or QQQS?

QQQS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CNBS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CNBS or QQQS?

QQQS has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 0.00% for CNBS.

What is the main difference between CNBS and QQQS?

CNBS is categorized as Cannabis, while QQQS is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CNBS and 0.20% for QQQS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 0.88), 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.