MNRS vs. CBTJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MNRS (Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. MNRS is passively managed, while CBTJ is actively managed. Over the past year, MNRS returned 126.14% vs -31.54% for CBTJ. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MNRS charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBTJ.

Performance

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF (MNRS) 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, MNRS achieves a 58.97% return, which is significantly higher than CBTJ's -19.03% return.

MNRS

• 1D: -1.39%
• 1M: 4.95%
• YTD: 58.97%
• 6M: 47.48%
• 1Y: 126.14%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CBTJ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -10.16%
• YTD: -19.03%
• 6M: -20.42%
• 1Y: -31.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MNRS Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF	58.97%	14.82%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-19.03%	-11.32%

Correlation

The correlation between MNRS and CBTJ is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2025	0.62

The correlation between MNRS and CBTJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MNRS vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNRS

MNRS Risk / Return Rank: 47
MNRS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
MNRS Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
MNRS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
MNRS Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
MNRS Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF (MNRS) 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.

	MNRS	CBTJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	-1.17	+2.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	-1.67	+3.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	0.81	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.24	-0.77	+3.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.35	-1.25	+5.60

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNRS Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the CBTJ Sharpe Ratio of -1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNRS 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

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNRS drawdown since its inception was -56.70%, which is greater than CBTJ's maximum drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNRS and CBTJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNRS	CBTJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.70%	-40.98%	-15.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-56.70%	-40.98%	-15.72%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.37%	-40.91%	+28.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.35%	-16.03%	-7.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	29.12%	25.32%	+3.80%

Volatility

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison

Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF (MNRS) has a higher volatility of 19.99% compared to Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) at 5.30%. This indicates that MNRS'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

	MNRS	CBTJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.99%	5.30%	+14.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.71%	18.24%	+34.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	71.27%	27.04%	+44.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	70.71%	25.36%	+45.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	70.71%	25.36%	+45.35%

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNRS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than CBTJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

MNRS vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison

MNRS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, less than CBTJ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.79%	1.45%
MNRS Grayscale Bitcoin Miners ETF	0.34%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MNRS and CBTJ in my portfolio?

MNRS and CBTJ have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MNRS or CBTJ?

MNRS has higher volatility (19.99%) compared to CBTJ (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNRS dropped -56.70% vs CBTJ's -40.98%.

Which ETF is better, MNRS or CBTJ?

On 1-year performance, MNRS leads with 126.14% vs -31.54% for CBTJ. On fees, MNRS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MNRS or CBTJ?

Over the 1-year period, MNRS has performed better with a 126.14% return vs -31.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MNRS or CBTJ?

MNRS is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CBTJ.

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

CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.34% for MNRS.

What is the main difference between MNRS and CBTJ?

They also come from different issuers: Grayscale and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MNRS and 0.69% for CBTJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MNRS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs -1.17), 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.