CPSF vs. QB

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

CPSF (Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February) and QB (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both Defined Outcome funds. CPSF is actively managed, while QB is passively managed. Over the past year, CPSF returned 6.57% vs 18.83% for QB. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CPSF charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QB.

Performance

CPSF vs. QB - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPSF achieves a 2.70% return, which is significantly lower than QB's 12.67% return.

CPSF

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 2.48%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 1Y: 6.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QB

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 3.50%
• 6M: 11.39%
• YTD: 12.67%
• 1Y: 18.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CPSF vs. QB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPSF Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February	2.70%	4.56%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	12.67%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between CPSF and QB is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.71

The correlation between CPSF and QB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

CPSF vs. QB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CPSF	QB
Technology	35.1%	49.9%
Financial Services	13.1%	0.2%
Communication Services	10.9%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	12.5%
Healthcare	9.6%	5.3%
Industrials	7.5%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	8.6%
Energy	2.8%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	1.6%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.3%

Return for Risk

CPSF vs. QB — Risk / Return Rank

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

CPSF

CPSF Risk / Return Rank: 95
CPSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
CPSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CPSF Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CPSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CPSF Martin Ratio Rank: 95

QB

QB Risk / Return Rank: 95
QB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QB Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
QB Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QB Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QB 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.

CPSF vs. QB - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB). 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	QB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.19	2.69	+0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.01	3.91	+1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.64	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.08	5.44	-0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.26	26.25	-1.99

CPSF vs. QB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPSF Sharpe Ratio is 3.19, which is comparable to the QB Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPSF and QB, 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. QB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPSF drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum QB drawdown of -3.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPSF and QB.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPSF	QB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-3.47%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.30%	-3.47%	+2.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	0.00%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.34%	-0.42%	+0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.27%	0.72%	-0.45%

Volatility

CPSF vs. QB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) is 0.49%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (QB) has a volatility of 2.86%. This indicates that CPSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPSF	QB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.49%	2.86%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.49%	5.82%	-4.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07%	7.03%	-4.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.76%	6.93%	-4.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.76%	6.93%	-4.17%

CPSF vs. QB - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPSF has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than QB's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPSF vs. QB - Dividend Comparison

CPSF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%.

Position	TTM	2025
CPSF Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February	0.00%	0.00%
QB ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF	0.77%	0.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPSF and QB in my portfolio?

CPSF and QB have a correlation of 0.71, 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 QB?

QB has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to CPSF (0.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPSF dropped -2.89% vs QB's -3.47%.

Which ETF is better, CPSF or QB?

On 1-year performance, QB leads with 18.83% vs 6.57% for CPSF. On fees, QB is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, CPSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CPSF or QB?

Over the 1-year period, QB has performed better with a 18.83% return vs 6.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPSF or QB?

QB is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPSF.

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

QB has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.00% for CPSF.

What is the main difference between CPSF and QB?

They also come from different issuers: Calamos and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPSF and 0.58% for QB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.69), 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.