CPNQ vs. OILK

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and OILK (ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CPNQ is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Calamos, while OILK is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index. CPNQ is actively managed, while OILK is passively managed. Over the past year, CPNQ returned 8.88% vs 58.99% for OILK. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. CPNQ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for OILK.

Performance

CPNQ vs. OILK - 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 ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF (OILK). 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 OILK's 64.22% return.

CPNQ

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

OILK

• 1D: 1.40%
• 1M: -1.65%
• YTD: 64.22%
• 6M: 60.70%
• 1Y: 58.99%
• 3Y*: 19.03%
• 5Y*: 17.73%
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNQ vs. OILK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.12%	7.80%	0.22%
OILK ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF	64.22%	-11.86%	4.67%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and OILK is -0.22, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2024	-0.07

The correlation between CPNQ and OILK shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to -0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. OILK — 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

OILK

OILK Risk / Return Rank: 55
OILK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
OILK Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
OILK Omega Ratio Rank: 54
OILK Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
OILK Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. OILK - 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 ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF (OILK). 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	OILK	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	2.06	+1.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.67	2.59	+3.08
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.74	1.34	+0.39
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.89	3.42	+2.47
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	29.34	6.91	+22.43
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. OILK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNQ Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is higher than the OILK Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNQ and OILK, 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	OILK	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	2.06	+1.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.24	0.12	+2.13

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. OILK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, smaller than the maximum OILK drawdown of -83.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and OILK.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	OILK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-83.76%	+80.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	-17.35%	+15.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-3.66%	+3.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-32.61%	+32.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	8.56%	-8.26%

Volatility

CPNQ vs. OILK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December (CPNQ) is 0.47%, while ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF (OILK) has a volatility of 10.44%. This indicates that CPNQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OILK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	OILK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	10.44%	-9.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.11%	23.26%	-21.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64%	28.75%	-26.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.37%	30.12%	-26.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.37%	35.97%	-32.60%

CPNQ vs. OILK - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CPNQ vs. OILK - Dividend Comparison

CPNQ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while OILK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.18%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
OILK ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF	8.18%	4.79%	3.11%	5.80%	17.32%	68.82%	0.13%	0.94%	0.58%	6.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and OILK in my portfolio?

CPNQ and OILK have a correlation of -0.22, 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 OILK?

OILK has higher volatility (10.44%) compared to CPNQ (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPNQ dropped -3.52% vs OILK's -83.76%.

Which ETF is better, CPNQ or OILK?

On 1-year performance, OILK leads with 58.99% vs 8.88% for CPNQ. On fees, OILK is cheaper at 0.68% 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 OILK?

Over the 1-year period, OILK has performed better with a 58.99% 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 OILK?

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

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

OILK has the higher dividend yield at 8.18%, compared with 0.00% for CPNQ.

What is the main difference between CPNQ and OILK?

CPNQ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while OILK is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPNQ and 0.68% for OILK.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPNQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 2.06), 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.