GFOF vs. CBTJ
GFOF (Grayscale Future of Finance ETF) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. GFOF is passively managed, while CBTJ is actively managed. GFOF charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBTJ.
Performance
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GFOF
- 1D
- —
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CBTJ
- 1D
- -1.44%
- 1M
- -10.52%
- YTD
- -16.58%
- 6M
- -22.65%
- 1Y
- -30.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
GFOF Grayscale Future of Finance ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | -16.58% | -11.32% |
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
GFOF vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank
GFOF
CBTJ
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Grayscale Future of Finance ETF (GFOF) 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GFOF | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | -1.12 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | — | -0.80 | — |
Drawdowns
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GFOF | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | — | -39.12% | — |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -39.12% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | — | -39.12% | — |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | — | -15.13% | — |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 23.62% | — |
Volatility
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GFOF | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.87% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 19.34% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 27.13% | — |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | — | 25.64% | — |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | — | 25.64% | — |
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
GFOF has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CBTJ's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
GFOF vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison
GFOF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CBTJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | 1.74% | 1.45% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GFOF Grayscale Future of Finance ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.55% | 4.08% |
Frequently Asked Questions
On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for GFOF.
CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 0.00% for GFOF.
They also come from different issuers: Grayscale and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for GFOF and 0.69% for CBTJ.
Find the right allocation for GFOF and CBTJ
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