CPNQ vs. FBUF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and FBUF (Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CPNQ returned 8.88% vs 19.61% for FBUF. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CPNQ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for FBUF.

Performance

CPNQ vs. FBUF - 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 Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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 lower than FBUF's 5.32% return.

CPNQ

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

FBUF

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 5.32%
• 6M: 6.28%
• 1Y: 19.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNQ vs. FBUF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.12%	7.80%	0.22%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	5.32%	14.01%	-1.54%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and FBUF is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2024	0.82

The correlation between CPNQ and FBUF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. FBUF — 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

FBUF

FBUF Risk / Return Rank: 79
FBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
FBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. FBUF - 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 Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF). 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	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	2.63	+0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.67	3.55	+2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	1.53	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.89	3.51	+2.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.34	15.68	+13.67
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. FBUF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNQ Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is comparable to the FBUF Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNQ and FBUF, 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	FBUF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	2.63	+0.76
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.24	1.47	+0.77

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. FBUF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, smaller than the maximum FBUF drawdown of -11.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and FBUF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	FBUF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-11.09%	+7.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	-5.61%	+4.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.22%	+0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-1.38%	+0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	1.25%	-0.95%

Volatility

CPNQ vs. FBUF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) is 0.47%, while Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF (FBUF) has a volatility of 1.11%. This indicates that CPNQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBUF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	FBUF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	1.11%	-0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.11%	5.37%	-3.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64%	7.49%	-4.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.37%	9.55%	-6.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.37%	9.55%	-6.18%

CPNQ vs. FBUF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPNQ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than FBUF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPNQ vs. FBUF - Dividend Comparison

CPNQ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBUF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FBUF Fidelity Dynamic Buffered Equity ETF	0.63%	0.64%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and FBUF in my portfolio?

CPNQ and FBUF have a correlation of 0.78, 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 FBUF?

FBUF has higher volatility (1.11%) compared to CPNQ (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPNQ dropped -3.52% vs FBUF's -11.09%.

Which ETF is better, CPNQ or FBUF?

On 1-year performance, FBUF leads with 19.61% vs 8.88% for CPNQ. On fees, FBUF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, CPNQ 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 FBUF?

Over the 1-year period, FBUF has performed better with a 19.61% return vs 8.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNQ or FBUF?

FBUF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPNQ.

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

FBUF has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.00% for CPNQ.

What is the main difference between CPNQ and FBUF?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPNQ and 0.48% for FBUF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPNQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 2.63), 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.