CPNS vs. CBTJ

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CPNS (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both exchange-traded funds - CPNS is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MerQube Cap Protect US Large Cap Tech PR Index - Sep, while CBTJ is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Calamos. CPNS is passively managed, while CBTJ is actively managed. Over the past year, CPNS returned 6.50% vs -36.40% for CBTJ. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.69% expense ratio.

Performance

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September (CPNS) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPNS achieves a 3.49% return, which is significantly higher than CBTJ's -18.01% return.

CPNS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.24%
• 6M: 3.26%
• YTD: 3.49%
• 1Y: 6.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBTJ

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -1.88%
• 6M: -26.05%
• YTD: -18.01%
• 1Y: -36.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPNS Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September	3.49%	6.47%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-18.01%	-11.32%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNS and CBTJ is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.44

Return for Risk

CPNS vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CPNS

CPNS Risk / Return Rank: 95
CPNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CPNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CPNS Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CPNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CPNS Martin Ratio Rank: 96

CBTJ

CBTJ Risk / Return Rank: 1
CBTJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
CBTJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
CBTJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBTJ Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September (CPNS) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). 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.

	CPNS	CBTJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.09	-1.37	+4.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.69	-2.03	+6.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.66	0.77	+0.89
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.97	-0.86	+5.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.72	-1.34	+28.06

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNS Sharpe Ratio is 3.09, which is higher than the CBTJ Sharpe Ratio of -1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNS and CBTJ, 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

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNS drawdown since its inception was -3.99%, smaller than the maximum CBTJ drawdown of -42.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNS and CBTJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNS	CBTJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-42.41%	+38.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.31%	-42.41%	+41.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.00%	-40.16%	+40.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.35%	-17.07%	+16.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.24%	27.24%	-27.00%

Volatility

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September (CPNS) is 0.49%, while Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) has a volatility of 4.65%. This indicates that CPNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CBTJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNS	CBTJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.49%	4.65%	-4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.74%	17.27%	-15.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11%	26.73%	-24.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.45%	25.01%	-21.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.45%	25.01%	-21.56%

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CPNS and CBTJ have an expense ratio of 0.69%.

Dividends

CPNS vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison

CPNS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%.

Position	TTM	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.77%	1.45%
CPNS Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPNS and CBTJ in my portfolio?

CPNS and CBTJ have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CPNS or CBTJ?

CBTJ has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to CPNS (0.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPNS dropped -3.99% vs CBTJ's -42.41%.

Which ETF is better, CPNS or CBTJ?

On 1-year performance, CPNS leads with 6.50% vs -36.40% for CBTJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.69% expense ratio. On volatility, CPNS has been the lower-risk option at 0.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPNS or CBTJ?

Over the 1-year period, CPNS has performed better with a 6.50% return vs -36.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPNS or CBTJ?

CPNS and CBTJ have the same expense ratio: 0.69% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CPNS or CBTJ?

CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.00% for CPNS.

What is the main difference between CPNS and CBTJ?

CPNS is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CBTJ is Blockchain.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPNS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 vs -1.37), 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.