DAPP vs. CBTJ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

DAPP (VanEck Digital Transformation ETF) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. DAPP is passively managed, while CBTJ is actively managed. Over the past year, DAPP returned 43.38% vs -30.72% for CBTJ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DAPP charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBTJ.

Performance

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Digital Transformation ETF (DAPP) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DAPP achieves a 32.37% return, which is significantly higher than CBTJ's -17.78% return.

DAPP

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: 2.87%
• YTD: 32.37%
• 6M: 20.82%
• 1Y: 43.38%
• 3Y*: 51.74%
• 5Y*: 0.56%
• 10Y*: —

CBTJ

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: -8.77%
• YTD: -17.78%
• 6M: -19.33%
• 1Y: -30.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DAPP VanEck Digital Transformation ETF	32.37%	9.18%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-17.78%	-11.32%

Correlation

The correlation between DAPP and CBTJ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.69

The correlation between DAPP and CBTJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DAPP vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAPP

DAPP Risk / Return Rank: 21
DAPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
DAPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
DAPP Omega Ratio Rank: 23
DAPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
DAPP Martin Ratio Rank: 17

CBTJ

CBTJ Risk / Return Rank: 2
CBTJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CBTJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CBTJ Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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.

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Digital Transformation ETF (DAPP) and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ). 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.

	DAPP	CBTJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	-1.14	+1.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.31	-1.62	+2.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	0.82	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.90	-0.75	+1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.74	-1.22	+2.96

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAPP Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is higher than the CBTJ Sharpe Ratio of -1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAPP and CBTJ, 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

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAPP drawdown since its inception was -92.61%, which is greater than CBTJ's maximum drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAPP and CBTJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAPP	CBTJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.61%	-40.98%	-51.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.21%	-40.98%	-7.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.88%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-91.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.81%	-39.99%	+6.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-61.16%	-15.96%	-45.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.96%	25.19%	-0.23%

Volatility

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Digital Transformation ETF (DAPP) has a higher volatility of 18.01% compared to Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) at 5.23%. This indicates that DAPP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBTJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAPP	CBTJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.01%	5.23%	+12.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.44%	18.22%	+28.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	62.22%	27.06%	+35.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	73.11%	25.37%	+47.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	72.81%	25.37%	+47.44%

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

DAPP has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than CBTJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

DAPP vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison

DAPP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.76%	1.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DAPP VanEck Digital Transformation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	4.04%	0.00%	0.00%	10.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAPP and CBTJ in my portfolio?

DAPP and CBTJ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DAPP or CBTJ?

DAPP has higher volatility (18.01%) compared to CBTJ (5.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DAPP dropped -92.61% vs CBTJ's -40.98%.

Which ETF is better, DAPP or CBTJ?

On 1-year performance, DAPP leads with 43.38% vs -30.72% for CBTJ. On fees, DAPP is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 5.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DAPP or CBTJ?

Over the 1-year period, DAPP has performed better with a 43.38% return vs -30.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAPP or CBTJ?

DAPP is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CBTJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DAPP or CBTJ?

CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.00% for DAPP.

What is the main difference between DAPP and CBTJ?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for DAPP and 0.69% for CBTJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DAPP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.70 vs -1.14), 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.