CPNQ vs. BALT

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and BALT (Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. CPNQ is actively managed, while BALT is passively managed. Over the past year, CPNQ returned 6.79% vs 6.51% for BALT. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.69% expense ratio.

Performance

CPNQ vs. BALT - 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 Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPNQ achieves a 3.03% return, which is significantly higher than BALT's 2.48% return.

CPNQ

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.02%
• 6M: 2.86%
• YTD: 3.03%
• 1Y: 6.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.84%

BALT

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.26%
• 6M: 2.04%
• YTD: 2.48%
• 1Y: 6.51%
• 3Y*: 6.98%
• 5Y*: 5.95%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.91%

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

CPNQ vs. BALT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.03%	7.80%	0.29%
BALT Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF	2.48%	6.65%	0.13%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and BALT is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 2, 2024	0.61

The correlation between CPNQ and BALT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. BALT — 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: 92
CPNQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CPNQ Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CPNQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CPNQ Martin Ratio Rank: 95

BALT

BALT Risk / Return Rank: 96
BALT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
BALT Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
BALT Omega Ratio Rank: 96
BALT Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
BALT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. BALT - 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 Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT). 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.

	CPNQ	BALT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.50	3.00	-0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.02	4.56	-0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.64	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.50	5.67	-1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.36	21.10	+0.26

CPNQ vs. BALT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the BALT Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNQ and BALT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. BALT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, smaller than the maximum BALT drawdown of -4.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and BALT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	BALT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-4.89%	+1.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	-1.15%	-0.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.89%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-4.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.29%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.41%	-0.34%	-0.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.32%	0.31%	+0.01%

Volatility

CPNQ vs. BALT - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) has a higher volatility of 0.72% compared to Innovator Defined Wealth Shield ETF (BALT) at 0.47%. This indicates that CPNQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BALT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	BALT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.72%	0.47%	+0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.28%	1.42%	+0.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74%	2.18%	+0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.34%	3.29%	+0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.34%	3.28%	+0.06%

CPNQ vs. BALT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CPNQ and BALT have an expense ratio of 0.69%.

Dividends

CPNQ vs. BALT - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPNQ nor BALT has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and BALT in my portfolio?

CPNQ and BALT have a correlation of 0.57, 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 BALT?

CPNQ has higher volatility (0.72%) compared to BALT (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPNQ dropped -3.52% vs BALT's -4.89%.

Which ETF is better, CPNQ or BALT?

On 1-year performance, CPNQ leads with 6.79% vs 6.51% for BALT. Both ETFs have the same 0.69% expense ratio. On volatility, BALT has been the lower-risk option at 0.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPNQ or BALT?

Over the 1-year period, CPNQ has performed better with a 6.79% return vs 6.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNQ or BALT?

CPNQ and BALT have the same expense ratio: 0.69% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between CPNQ and BALT?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Innovator.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BALT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.00 vs 2.50), 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.