CPNQ vs. MLPI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and MLPI (Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CPNQ is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Calamos, while MLPI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.24, they often move in opposite directions. CPNQ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for MLPI.

Performance

CPNQ vs. MLPI - 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 Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). 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 MLPI's 17.58% return.

CPNQ

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

MLPI

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -3.13%
• YTD: 17.58%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNQ vs. MLPI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.12%	0.34%
MLPI Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	17.58%	0.56%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and MLPI is -0.24, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2025	-0.24

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. MLPI — 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

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. MLPI - 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 Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). 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	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.67	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.89	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.34	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CPNQ	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.24	3.49	-1.25

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. MLPI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, smaller than the maximum MLPI drawdown of -5.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and MLPI.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	MLPI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-5.38%	+1.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-3.84%	+3.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-1.27%	+0.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	MLPI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.11%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64%	13.05%	-10.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.37%	13.05%	-9.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.37%	13.05%	-9.68%

CPNQ vs. MLPI - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPNQ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPNQ vs. MLPI - Dividend Comparison

CPNQ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MLPI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.04%.

Position	TTM
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	0.00%
MLPI Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	6.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and MLPI in my portfolio?

CPNQ and MLPI have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CPNQ or MLPI?

On fees, MLPI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNQ or MLPI?

MLPI is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPNQ.

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

MLPI has the higher dividend yield at 6.04%, compared with 0.00% for CPNQ.

What is the main difference between CPNQ and MLPI?

CPNQ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while MLPI is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPNQ and 0.68% for MLPI.