CZA vs. CAOS
CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. CZA is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CZA returned 13.10%/yr vs 3.48%/yr for CAOS. Their 0.05 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.
Performance
CZA vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 13.62% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.76% return.
CZA
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 1.88%
- 6M
- 10.39%
- YTD
- 13.62%
- 1Y
- 21.77%
- 3Y*
- 13.10%
- 5Y*
- 7.84%
- 10Y*
- 10.75%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.79%
CAOS
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- 6M
- 0.16%
- YTD
- 0.76%
- 1Y
- 1.73%
- 3Y*
- 3.48%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.70%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.81M | $5.39M | $5.09M | |
| $196.72K | $224.48K | $282.82K |
CZA vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF | 13.62% | 8.31% | 12.14% | 2.21% |
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF | 0.76% | 2.55% | 5.33% | 7.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between CZA and CAOS is -0.27, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023 | 0.05 |
The correlation between CZA and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to 0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CZA vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank
CZA
CAOS
CZA vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.
| CZA | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.24 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.21 | 2.47 | -0.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.75 | 5.45 | +3.30 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CZA vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and CAOS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CZA | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.20% | -3.89% | -49.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.21% | -0.76% | -8.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.92% | -3.60% | -15.32% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.18% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.87% | -1.13% | +0.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.83% | -0.92% | -5.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.33% | 0.34% | +1.99% |
Volatility
CZA vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.51%. This indicates that CZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CZA | CAOS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.14% | 0.51% | +2.63% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.20% | 1.07% | +8.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.57% | 1.57% | +11.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.07% | 4.18% | +11.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.20% | 4.18% | +15.02% |
CZA vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison
CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.
Dividends
CZA vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison
CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF | 1.37% | 1.56% | 1.27% | 1.36% | 1.71% | 0.89% | 1.42% | 1.40% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.87% | 1.37% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CZA and CAOS have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CZA has higher volatility (3.14%) compared to CAOS (0.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs CAOS's -3.89%.
On 3-year performance, CZA leads with 13.10% vs 3.48% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CZA has performed better with a 13.10% return vs 3.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.
CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.
CZA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.63% for CAOS.
CZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 1.19), 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.
Find the right allocation for CZA and CAOS
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