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

Performance

CPSF vs. CANQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) 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, CPSF achieves a 2.27% return, which is significantly lower than CANQ's 7.60% return.


CPSF

1D
-0.19%
1M
0.56%
YTD
2.27%
6M
2.93%
1Y
7.72%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CANQ

1D
-0.37%
1M
5.62%
YTD
7.60%
6M
5.52%
1Y
17.89%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CPSF vs. CANQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CPSF and CANQ 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 Feb 4, 2025

0.80

The correlation between CPSF and CANQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CPSF vs. CANQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CPSF
CANQ

Technology

35.1%

-

Financial Services

13.1%
82.1%

Communication Services

10.9%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%

-

Healthcare

9.6%

-

Industrials

7.5%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.7%

-

Energy

2.8%

-

Utilities

2.3%

-

Real Estate

1.8%

-

Basic Materials

1.7%

-

Technology

CPSF
35.1%
CANQ

-

Financial Services

CPSF
13.1%
CANQ
82.1%

Communication Services

CPSF
10.9%
CANQ

-

Consumer Cyclical

CPSF
10.6%
CANQ

-

Healthcare

CPSF
9.6%
CANQ

-

Industrials

CPSF
7.5%
CANQ

-

Consumer Defensive

CPSF
4.7%
CANQ

-

Energy

CPSF
2.8%
CANQ

-

Utilities

CPSF
2.3%
CANQ

-

Real Estate

CPSF
1.8%
CANQ

-

Basic Materials

CPSF
1.7%
CANQ

-

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

CPSF vs. CANQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPSF
CPSF Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
CPSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CPSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
CPSF Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
CPSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
CPSF Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank

CANQ
CANQ Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
CANQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CANQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
CANQ Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
CANQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
CANQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
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.

CPSF vs. CANQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) 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.


CPSFCANQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.64

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.82

1.30

+0.53

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.97

1.67

+4.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

29.19

5.17

+24.02

CPSF vs. CANQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPSF Sharpe Ratio is 3.73, which is higher than the CANQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPSF 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CPSFCANQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.73

1.67

+2.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.28

1.35

+0.93

Drawdowns

CPSF vs. CANQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPSF drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum CANQ drawdown of -12.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPSF and CANQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CPSFCANQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-2.89%

-12.79%

+9.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.30%

-10.77%

+9.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.19%

-0.37%

+0.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.35%

-2.95%

+2.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.26%

3.47%

-3.21%

Volatility

CPSF vs. CANQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) is 0.43%, while Calamos Alternative Nasdaq & Bond ETF (CANQ) has a volatility of 3.86%. This indicates that CPSF 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


CPSFCANQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.43%

3.86%

-3.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.40%

7.52%

-6.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.09%

10.76%

-8.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.82%

12.69%

-9.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.82%

12.69%

-9.87%

CPSF vs. CANQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

CPSF vs. CANQ - Dividend Comparison

CPSF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CANQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%.


Frequently Asked Questions


CPSF and CANQ have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CANQ has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to CPSF (0.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPSF dropped -2.89% vs CANQ's -12.79%.

On 1-year performance, CANQ leads with 17.89% vs 7.72% for CPSF. On fees, CPSF is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.43%. 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 17.89% return vs 7.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

CANQ has the higher dividend yield at 4.36%, compared with 0.00% for CPSF.

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

CPSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.73 vs 1.67), 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 CPSF 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