CPSF vs. KMAR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

CPSF (Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February) and KMAR (Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March) are both Defined Outcome funds. CPSF is actively managed, while KMAR is passively managed. Over the past year, CPSF returned 6.83% vs 24.41% for KMAR. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CPSF charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KMAR.

Performance

CPSF vs. KMAR - 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 Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPSF achieves a 3.13% return, which is significantly lower than KMAR's 12.74% return.

CPSF

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: 2.34%
• YTD: 3.13%
• 1Y: 6.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.23%

KMAR

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.78%
• 6M: 9.45%
• YTD: 12.74%
• 1Y: 24.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.47%

*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)
CPSF Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February	$35.38K	$32.23K	$45.55K
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March	$120.12K	$77.14K	$163.43K

CPSF vs. KMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPSF Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February	3.13%	6.15%
KMAR Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March	12.74%	11.45%

Correlation

The correlation between CPSF and KMAR is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2025	0.73

The correlation between CPSF and KMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CPSF vs. KMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPSF

CPSF Risk / Return Rank: 96
CPSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
CPSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CPSF Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CPSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CPSF Martin Ratio Rank: 96

KMAR

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

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.

CPSF vs. KMAR - 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 Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR). 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.

	CPSF	KMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.27	2.68	+0.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.13	3.94	+1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.52	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.28	5.01	+0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	25.30	21.18	+4.12

CPSF vs. KMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPSF Sharpe Ratio is 3.27, which is comparable to the KMAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPSF and KMAR, 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

CPSF vs. KMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPSF drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum KMAR drawdown of -11.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPSF and KMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPSF	KMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-11.32%	+8.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.30%	-4.89%	+3.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.33%	-1.26%	+0.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.27%	1.16%	-0.89%

Volatility

CPSF vs. KMAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) is 0.55%, while Innovator U.S. Small Cap Power Buffer ETF - March (KMAR) has a volatility of 1.82%. This indicates that CPSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPSF	KMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.55%	1.82%	-1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.54%	6.80%	-5.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.10%	9.17%	-7.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.74%	11.78%	-9.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.74%	11.78%	-9.04%

CPSF vs. KMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPSF has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than KMAR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPSF vs. KMAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPSF nor KMAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPSF and KMAR in my portfolio?

CPSF and KMAR have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CPSF or KMAR?

KMAR has higher volatility (1.82%) compared to CPSF (0.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPSF dropped -2.89% vs KMAR's -11.32%.

Which ETF is better, CPSF or KMAR?

On 1-year performance, KMAR leads with 24.41% vs 6.83% for CPSF. On fees, CPSF is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CPSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPSF or KMAR?

Over the 1-year period, KMAR has performed better with a 24.41% return vs 6.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPSF or KMAR?

CPSF is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CPSF or KMAR?

CPSF and KMAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CPSF and KMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPSF and 0.79% for KMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.27 vs 2.68), 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.