CPNQ vs. PMAU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPNQ (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December) and PMAU (PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August) are both Defined Outcome funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPNQ charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for PMAU.

Performance

CPNQ vs. PMAU - 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 PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU). 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 PMAU's 2.95% return.

CPNQ

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

PMAU

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.89%
• YTD: 2.95%
• 6M: 3.43%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNQ vs. PMAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPNQ Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - December	3.12%	3.69%
PMAU PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August	2.95%	2.98%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNQ and PMAU is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 4, 2025	0.77

Return for Risk

CPNQ vs. PMAU — 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. PMAU - 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 PGIM S&P 500 Max Buffer ETF - August (PMAU). 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	PMAU	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	PMAU	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	2.90	-0.66

Drawdowns

CPNQ vs. PMAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNQ drawdown since its inception was -3.52%, which is greater than PMAU's maximum drawdown of -1.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNQ and PMAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNQ	PMAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-1.79%	-1.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-0.02%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-0.17%	-0.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CPNQ	PMAU	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%	2.51%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.37%	2.51%	+0.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.37%	2.51%	+0.86%

CPNQ vs. PMAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPNQ has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than PMAU's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPNQ vs. PMAU - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPNQ nor PMAU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNQ and PMAU in my portfolio?

CPNQ and PMAU have a correlation of 0.77, 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 PMAU?

On fees, PMAU is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNQ or PMAU?

PMAU is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPNQ.

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

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

What is the main difference between CPNQ and PMAU?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and PGIM. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPNQ and 0.50% for PMAU.