CPRO vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPRO (Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds. CPRO is actively managed, while EAPR is passively managed. Over the past year, CPRO returned 13.01% vs 22.07% for EAPR. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CPRO charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

CPRO vs. EAPR - 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 Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPRO achieves a 3.79% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 11.39% return.

CPRO

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.78%
• YTD: 3.79%
• 6M: 3.93%
• 1Y: 13.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

CPRO vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CPRO Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October	3.79%	8.34%	0.59%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.39%	14.80%	-4.35%

Correlation

The correlation between CPRO and EAPR is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2024	0.46

The correlation between CPRO and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPRO vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPRO

CPRO Risk / Return Rank: 93
CPRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
CPRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CPRO Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CPRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CPRO Martin Ratio Rank: 94

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 94
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. EAPR - 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 Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). 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.

	CPRO	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.91	3.06	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.32	5.25	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.84	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.39	7.33	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.14	42.15	-15.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CPRO vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPRO Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPRO and EAPR, 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

	CPRO	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.91	3.06	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.86	0.54	+1.32

Drawdowns

CPRO vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPRO drawdown since its inception was -3.36%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPRO and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPRO	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.36%	-17.65%	+14.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.77%	-3.02%	+1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	-0.45%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.70%	-4.06%	+3.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.48%	0.52%	-0.04%

Volatility

CPRO vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) is 0.63%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 3.79%. This indicates that CPRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPRO	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.63%	3.79%	-3.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.05%	6.28%	-4.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.50%	7.24%	-2.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.15%	10.09%	-5.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.15%	10.02%	-5.87%

CPRO vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPRO has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPRO vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPRO nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPRO and EAPR in my portfolio?

CPRO and EAPR have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CPRO or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to CPRO (0.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPRO dropped -3.36% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, CPRO or EAPR?

On 1-year performance, EAPR leads with 22.07% vs 13.01% for CPRO. On fees, CPRO is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPRO has been the lower-risk option at 0.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPRO or EAPR?

Over the 1-year period, EAPR has performed better with a 22.07% return vs 13.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPRO or EAPR?

CPRO is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CPRO or EAPR?

CPRO and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CPRO and EAPR?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPRO and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.91), 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.