CPNQ vs. APXM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and APXM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CPNQ returned 8.88% vs 5.49% for APXM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPNQ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for APXM.

Performance

CPNQ vs. APXM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPNQ achieves a 3.12% return, which is significantly higher than APXM's 2.11% return.

CPNQ

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.03%
• YTD: 3.12%
• 6M: 3.32%
• 1Y: 8.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

APXM

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 2.11%
• 6M: 2.59%
• 1Y: 5.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNQ vs. APXM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.12%	9.53%
APXM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April	2.11%	5.40%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and APXM is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2025	0.62

The correlation between CPNQ and APXM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. APXM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPNQ

CPNQ Risk / Return Rank: 94
CPNQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CPNQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CPNQ Omega Ratio Rank: 95
CPNQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CPNQ Martin Ratio Rank: 95

APXM

APXM Risk / Return Rank: 99
APXM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
APXM Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Omega Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
APXM Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

CPNQ vs. APXM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) and FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM). 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.

	CPNQ	APXM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	5.47	-2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.67	10.56	-4.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	2.60	-0.86
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.89	20.36	-14.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.34	110.99	-81.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CPNQ vs. APXM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNQ Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is lower than the APXM Sharpe Ratio of 5.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNQ and APXM, 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

	CPNQ	APXM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	5.47	-2.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.24	5.70	-3.46

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. APXM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, which is greater than APXM's maximum drawdown of -0.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and APXM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	APXM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-0.40%	-3.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	-0.27%	-1.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.06%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-0.03%	-0.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	0.05%	+0.25%

Volatility

CPNQ vs. APXM - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) has a higher volatility of 0.47% compared to FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - April (APXM) at 0.42%. This indicates that CPNQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than APXM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	APXM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	0.42%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.11%	0.78%	+1.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64%	1.01%	+1.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.37%	1.20%	+2.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.37%	1.20%	+2.17%

CPNQ vs. APXM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPNQ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than APXM's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPNQ vs. APXM - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPNQ nor APXM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and APXM in my portfolio?

CPNQ and APXM have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CPNQ or APXM?

CPNQ has higher volatility (0.47%) compared to APXM (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPNQ dropped -3.52% vs APXM's -0.40%.

Which ETF is better, CPNQ or APXM?

On 1-year performance, CPNQ leads with 8.88% vs 5.49% for APXM. On fees, CPNQ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPNQ or APXM?

Over the 1-year period, CPNQ has performed better with a 8.88% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNQ or APXM?

CPNQ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for APXM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CPNQ or APXM?

CPNQ and APXM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CPNQ and APXM?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPNQ and 0.85% for APXM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

APXM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.47 vs 3.39), 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.