PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CPRO vs. CANQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CPRO vs. CANQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) and Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPRO achieves a 4.26% return, which is significantly higher than CANQ's 3.74% return.


CPRO

1D
-0.12%
1M
0.82%
YTD
4.26%
6M
4.01%
1Y
13.21%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CANQ

1D
-0.86%
1M
-1.76%
YTD
3.74%
6M
3.40%
1Y
13.55%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CPRO vs. CANQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CPRO and CANQ is 0.56, 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

0.56

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2024

0.58

The correlation between CPRO and CANQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

CPRO vs. CANQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPRO
CPRO Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
CPRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CPRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
CPRO Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
CPRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CPRO Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank

CANQ
CANQ Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
CANQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CANQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
CANQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CANQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
CANQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CPRO vs. CANQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) and Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ). 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.


CPROCANQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.77

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.72

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.65

1.21

+0.44

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.50

1.26

+6.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

27.79

3.84

+23.95

CPRO vs. CANQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPRO Sharpe Ratio is 2.96, which is higher than the CANQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPRO and CANQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CPRO vs. CANQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPRO drawdown since its inception was -3.36%, smaller than the maximum CANQ drawdown of -12.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPRO and CANQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CPROCANQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-3.36%

-12.79%

+9.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.77%

-10.77%

+9.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.12%

-3.94%

+3.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.69%

-2.95%

+2.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.48%

3.54%

-3.06%

Volatility

CPRO vs. CANQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) is 0.79%, while Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) has a volatility of 4.59%. This indicates that CPRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CANQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CPROCANQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.79%

4.59%

-3.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.12%

8.39%

-6.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.48%

11.44%

-6.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.13%

12.85%

-8.72%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.13%

12.85%

-8.72%

CPRO vs. CANQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPRO has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than CANQ's 0.90% expense ratio.


Dividends

CPRO vs. CANQ - Dividend Comparison

CPRO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CANQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.52%.


Frequently Asked Questions


CPRO and CANQ have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CANQ has higher volatility (4.59%) compared to CPRO (0.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPRO dropped -3.36% vs CANQ's -12.79%.

On 1-year performance, CANQ leads with 13.55% vs 13.21% for CPRO. On fees, CPRO is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPRO has been the lower-risk option at 0.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, CANQ has performed better with a 13.55% return vs 13.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CPRO is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CANQ.

CANQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.52%, compared with 0.00% for CPRO.

CPRO is categorized as Defined Outcome, while CANQ is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPRO and 0.90% for CANQ.

CPRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.96 vs 1.19), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CPRO and CANQ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer