FEBP vs. CBOX

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

FEBP (PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February) and CBOX (Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF) are both Options Trading funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. FEBP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for CBOX.

Performance

FEBP vs. CBOX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) and Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF (CBOX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FEBP

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 1.34%
• 6M: 6.79%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.76%

CBOX

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.46%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*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)
CBOX Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF	$7.63M	$8.26M	$7.02M
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	$175.35K	$134.02K	$137.04K

FEBP vs. CBOX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FEBP PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February	5.09%
CBOX Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBP and CBOX is 0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2026	0.08

Return for Risk

FEBP vs. CBOX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBP

FEBP Risk / Return Rank: 66
FEBP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FEBP Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FEBP Omega Ratio Rank: 80
FEBP Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FEBP Martin Ratio Rank: 85

CBOX

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

FEBP vs. CBOX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM US Large-Cap Buffer 12 ETF - February (FEBP) and Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF (CBOX). 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.

	FEBP	CBOX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.29	—	—

Drawdowns

FEBP vs. CBOX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBP drawdown since its inception was -12.11%, which is greater than CBOX's maximum drawdown of -2.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBP and CBOX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBP	CBOX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.11%	-2.90%	-9.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.16%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.21%	+2.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-1.49%	+0.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.15%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FEBP	CBOX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.90%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.78%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.61%	7.72%	+2.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.19%	7.72%	+2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.19%	7.72%	+2.47%

FEBP vs. CBOX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CBOX's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBP vs. CBOX - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEBP nor CBOX has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBP and CBOX in my portfolio?

FEBP and CBOX have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEBP or CBOX?

On fees, CBOX is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBP or CBOX?

CBOX is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEBP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBP or CBOX?

FEBP and CBOX have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FEBP and CBOX?

They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEBP and 0.14% for CBOX.