CPSF vs. USL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CPSF (Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February) and USL (United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - CPSF is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Calamos, while USL is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. CPSF is actively managed, while USL is passively managed. Over the past year, CPSF returned 7.72% vs 57.86% for USL. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. CPSF charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for USL.

Performance

CPSF vs. USL - 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 United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CPSF achieves a 2.27% return, which is significantly lower than USL's 63.07% return.

CPSF

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

USL

• 1D: 1.55%
• 1M: -1.61%
• YTD: 63.07%
• 6M: 59.66%
• 1Y: 57.86%
• 3Y*: 18.42%
• 5Y*: 17.41%
• 10Y*: 10.91%

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

CPSF vs. USL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CPSF Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February	2.27%	6.18%
USL United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP	63.07%	-12.94%

Correlation

The correlation between CPSF and USL is -0.28, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	-0.12

The correlation between CPSF and USL shifts across timeframes, from -0.28 (1 year) to -0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CPSF vs. USL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CPSF	USL
Technology	35.1%	-
Financial Services	13.1%	4.5%
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%	-

Return for Risk

CPSF vs. USL — 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: 95
CPSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CPSF Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CPSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CPSF Martin Ratio Rank: 95

USL

USL Risk / Return Rank: 56
USL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
USL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
USL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
USL Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
USL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. USL - 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 United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). 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.

	CPSF	USL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.73	2.04	+1.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.01	2.58	+3.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.82	1.34	+0.49
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.97	3.47	+2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.19	7.02	+22.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CPSF vs. USL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CPSF Sharpe Ratio is 3.73, which is higher than the USL Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CPSF and USL, 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

	CPSF	USL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.73	2.04	+1.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.58	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.34	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.28	0.01	+2.27

Drawdowns

CPSF vs. USL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CPSF drawdown since its inception was -2.89%, smaller than the maximum USL drawdown of -89.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CPSF and USL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CPSF	USL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.89%	-89.06%	+86.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.30%	-16.76%	+15.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.33%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.82%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-66.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	-38.16%	+37.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.35%	-61.46%	+61.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.26%	8.27%	-8.01%

Volatility

CPSF vs. USL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - February (CPSF) is 0.43%, while United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL) has a volatility of 10.53%. This indicates that CPSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CPSF	USL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.43%	10.53%	-10.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.40%	23.33%	-21.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09%	28.54%	-26.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.82%	30.08%	-27.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.82%	32.35%	-29.53%

CPSF vs. USL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CPSF has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than USL's 0.88% expense ratio.

Dividends

CPSF vs. USL - Dividend Comparison

Neither CPSF nor USL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CPSF and USL in my portfolio?

CPSF and USL have a correlation of -0.28, 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 USL?

USL has higher volatility (10.53%) compared to CPSF (0.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CPSF dropped -2.89% vs USL's -89.06%.

Which ETF is better, CPSF or USL?

On 1-year performance, USL leads with 57.86% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CPSF or USL?

Over the 1-year period, USL has performed better with a 57.86% return vs 7.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CPSF or USL?

CPSF is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.88% for USL.

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

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

What is the main difference between CPSF and USL?

CPSF is categorized as Defined Outcome, while USL is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CPSF and 0.88% for USL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.73 vs 2.04), 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.