CPRO vs. TMAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CPRO (Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October) and TMAR (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. CPRO is actively managed, while TMAR is passively managed. Over the past year, CPRO returned 13.53% vs 29.13% for TMAR. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPRO charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TMAR.

Performance

CPRO vs. TMAR - 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 FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPRO achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly lower than TMAR's 15.63% return.

CPRO

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.39%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 13.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TMAR

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 2.88%
• YTD: 15.63%
• 6M: 16.19%
• 1Y: 29.13%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPRO vs. TMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPRO Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October	4.39%	9.58%
TMAR FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March	15.63%	15.97%

Correlation

The correlation between CPRO and TMAR is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 24, 2025	0.52

The correlation between CPRO and TMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPRO vs. TMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPRO

CPRO Risk / Return Rank: 94
CPRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CPRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CPRO Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CPRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CPRO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

TMAR

TMAR Risk / Return Rank: 92
TMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
TMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
TMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
TMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
TMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. TMAR - 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 FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR). 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.

	CPRO	TMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	2.78	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.55	4.03	+1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.70	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.68	6.24	+1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.45	31.24	-2.78

CPRO vs. TMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPRO Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is comparable to the TMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPRO and TMAR, 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

CPRO vs. TMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPRO drawdown since its inception was -3.36%, smaller than the maximum TMAR drawdown of -9.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPRO and TMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPRO	TMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.36%	-9.93%	+6.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.77%	-4.69%	+2.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.69%	-0.71%	+0.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.48%	0.93%	-0.45%

Volatility

CPRO vs. TMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Russell 2000 Structured Alt Protection ETF - October (CPRO) is 0.77%, while FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - March (TMAR) has a volatility of 5.53%. This indicates that CPRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPRO	TMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.77%	5.53%	-4.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.12%	9.55%	-7.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.49%	10.55%	-6.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.13%	12.08%	-7.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.13%	12.08%	-7.95%

CPRO vs. TMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPRO has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than TMAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPRO vs. TMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPRO nor TMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPRO and TMAR in my portfolio?

CPRO and TMAR have a correlation of 0.55, 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 TMAR?

TMAR has higher volatility (5.53%) compared to CPRO (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPRO dropped -3.36% vs TMAR's -9.93%.

Which ETF is better, CPRO or TMAR?

On 1-year performance, TMAR leads with 29.13% vs 13.53% for CPRO. On fees, CPRO is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPRO has been the lower-risk option at 0.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPRO or TMAR?

Over the 1-year period, TMAR has performed better with a 29.13% return vs 13.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPRO or TMAR?

CPRO is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TMAR.

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

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

What is the main difference between CPRO and TMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPRO and 0.95% for TMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 2.78), 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.