CPRA vs. DCMT

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

CPRA (Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) and DCMT (DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CPRA is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Calamos, while DCMT is a Commodities fund actively managed by DoubleLine. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CPRA returned 8.84% vs 29.63% for DCMT. Their -0.12 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. CPRA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for DCMT.

Performance

CPRA vs. DCMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA) and DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPRA achieves a 4.92% return, which is significantly lower than DCMT's 24.74% return.

CPRA

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 0.65%
• 6M: 4.37%
• YTD: 4.92%
• 1Y: 8.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.95%

DCMT

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 6.02%
• 6M: 16.61%
• YTD: 24.74%
• 1Y: 29.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.42%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CPRA Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	$7.56K	$25.27K	$31.53K
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	$307.72K	$268.91K	$199.57K

CPRA vs. DCMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPRA Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	4.92%	6.93%
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	24.74%	0.45%

Correlation

The correlation between CPRA and DCMT is -0.22, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025	-0.12

Return for Risk

CPRA vs. DCMT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CPRA

CPRA Risk / Return Rank: 98
CPRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Omega Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CPRA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

DCMT

DCMT Risk / Return Rank: 52
DCMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
DCMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
DCMT Omega Ratio Rank: 53
DCMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
DCMT Martin Ratio Rank: 48

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CPRA vs. DCMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA) and DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). 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.

	CPRA	DCMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.21	1.56	+2.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.43	2.16	+5.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.03	1.27	+0.76
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.95	1.86	+8.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	56.96	6.16	+50.80

CPRA vs. DCMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPRA Sharpe Ratio is 4.21, which is higher than the DCMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPRA and DCMT, 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

CPRA vs. DCMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPRA drawdown since its inception was -1.69%, smaller than the maximum DCMT drawdown of -15.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPRA and DCMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPRA	DCMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.69%	-15.96%	+14.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.89%	-15.96%	+15.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-10.46%	+10.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.14%	-3.63%	+3.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.16%	4.82%	-4.66%

Volatility

CPRA vs. DCMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPRA) is 0.48%, while DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT) has a volatility of 5.57%. This indicates that CPRA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DCMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPRA	DCMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.48%	5.57%	-5.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.36%	16.66%	-15.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13%	19.04%	-16.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.71%	16.06%	-13.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.71%	16.06%	-13.35%

CPRA vs. DCMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPRA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than DCMT's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPRA vs. DCMT - Dividend Comparison

CPRA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DCMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CPRA Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	2.94%	3.67%	1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPRA and DCMT in my portfolio?

CPRA and DCMT 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, CPRA or DCMT?

DCMT has higher volatility (5.57%) compared to CPRA (0.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPRA dropped -1.69% vs DCMT's -15.96%.

Which ETF is better, CPRA or DCMT?

On 1-year performance, DCMT leads with 29.63% vs 8.84% for CPRA. On fees, DCMT is cheaper at 0.66% per year. On volatility, CPRA has been the lower-risk option at 0.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPRA or DCMT?

Over the 1-year period, DCMT has performed better with a 29.63% return vs 8.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPRA or DCMT?

DCMT is cheaper with a 0.66% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPRA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CPRA or DCMT?

DCMT has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 0.00% for CPRA.

What is the main difference between CPRA and DCMT?

CPRA is categorized as Defined Outcome, while DCMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPRA and 0.66% for DCMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPRA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.21 vs 1.56), 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.