CPNS vs. NAPR

Last updated Apr 15, 2026

CPNS (Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September) and NAPR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds — CPNS is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MerQube Cap Protect US Large Cap Tech PR Index - Sep, while NAPR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CPNS returned 9.72% vs 21.13% for NAPR. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CPNS charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for NAPR.

Performance

CPNS vs. NAPR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPNS achieves a 1.30% return, which is significantly lower than NAPR's 6.00% return.

CPNS

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.09%
• YTD: 1.30%
• 6M: 2.21%
• 1Y: 9.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NAPR

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: 4.71%
• YTD: 6.00%
• 6M: 8.25%
• 1Y: 21.13%
• 3Y*: 13.67%
• 5Y*: 9.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

CPNS vs. NAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPNS Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September	1.30%	7.25%	2.79%
NAPR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April	6.00%	6.56%	6.90%

Correlation

The correlation between CPNS and NAPR is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 4, 2024	0.85

The correlation between CPNS and NAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 — a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPNS vs. NAPR — 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: 93
CPNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CPNS Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CPNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CPNS Martin Ratio Rank: 96

NAPR

NAPR Risk / Return Rank: 97
NAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
NAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 98
NAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
NAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. NAPR - 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 Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR). 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.

	CPNS	NAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.59	4.00	-0.41
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.79	6.89	-1.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.86	2.11	-0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.67	8.05	-0.38
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	37.10	65.55	-28.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CPNS vs. NAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPNS Sharpe Ratio is 3.59, which is comparable to the NAPR Sharpe Ratio of 4.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPNS and NAPR, 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

	CPNS	NAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.59	4.00	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.99	1.01	+0.98

Drawdowns

CPNS vs. NAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPNS drawdown since its inception was -3.99%, smaller than the maximum NAPR drawdown of -16.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPNS and NAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPNS	NAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-16.53%	+12.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.31%	-2.84%	+1.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-2.33%	+1.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.27%	0.35%	-0.08%

Volatility

CPNS vs. NAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - September (CPNS) is 1.15%, while Innovator Nasdaq-100 Power Buffer ETF - April (NAPR) has a volatility of 1.88%. This indicates that CPNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPNS	NAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.15%	1.88%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.87%	2.86%	-0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73%	5.36%	-2.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.60%	11.32%	-7.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.60%	10.71%	-7.11%

CPNS vs. NAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPNS has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than NAPR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPNS vs. NAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPNS nor NAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments