NOBL vs. CPSP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NOBL (ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF) and CPSP (Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April) are both exchange-traded funds - NOBL is a Dividend fund tracking the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index, while CPSP is a S&P 500 fund actively managed by Calamos. NOBL is passively managed, while CPSP is actively managed. Over the past year, NOBL returned 9.00% vs 7.13% for CPSP. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NOBL charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CPSP.

Performance

NOBL vs. CPSP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) and Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPSP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NOBL achieves a 3.51% return, which is significantly higher than CPSP's 3.18% return.

NOBL

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 3.51%
• 6M: 3.45%
• 1Y: 9.00%
• 3Y*: 8.01%
• 5Y*: 5.03%
• 10Y*: 9.51%

CPSP

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 6M: 3.74%
• 1Y: 7.13%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NOBL vs. CPSP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF	3.51%	3.77%
CPSP Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	3.18%	5.46%

Correlation

The correlation between NOBL and CPSP is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	0.52

The correlation between NOBL and CPSP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NOBL vs. CPSP — Risk / Return Rank

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

NOBL

NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 22
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 20
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 21

CPSP

CPSP Risk / Return Rank: 98
CPSP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CPSP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CPSP Omega Ratio Rank: 98
CPSP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CPSP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

NOBL vs. CPSP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) and Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPSP). 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.

	NOBL	CPSP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.80	5.08	-4.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	9.15	-7.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	2.31	-1.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	19.11	-18.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.58	96.35	-93.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NOBL vs. CPSP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NOBL Sharpe Ratio is 0.80, which is lower than the CPSP Sharpe Ratio of 5.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NOBL and CPSP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NOBL	CPSP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80	5.08	-4.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.57	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	3.17	-2.53

Drawdowns

NOBL vs. CPSP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NOBL drawdown since its inception was -35.43%, which is greater than CPSP's maximum drawdown of -1.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NOBL and CPSP.

Drawdown Indicators

	NOBL	CPSP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.43%	-1.73%	-33.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.11%	-0.37%	-8.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.99%	0.00%	-5.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.48%	-0.08%	-3.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	0.07%	+3.43%

Volatility

NOBL vs. CPSP - Volatility Comparison

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) has a higher volatility of 2.36% compared to Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CPSP) at 0.32%. This indicates that NOBL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CPSP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NOBL	CPSP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.36%	0.32%	+2.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.00%	0.84%	+7.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.33%	1.42%	+9.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.38%	2.37%	+12.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.60%	2.37%	+14.23%

NOBL vs. CPSP - Expense Ratio Comparison

NOBL has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CPSP's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

NOBL vs. CPSP - Dividend Comparison

NOBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.12%, while CPSP has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CPSP Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF - April	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF	2.12%	2.14%	2.05%	2.09%	1.94%	1.89%	2.14%	1.89%	2.37%	1.74%	2.13%	2.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NOBL and CPSP in my portfolio?

NOBL and CPSP have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NOBL or CPSP?

NOBL has higher volatility (2.36%) compared to CPSP (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NOBL dropped -35.43% vs CPSP's -1.73%.

Which ETF is better, NOBL or CPSP?

On 1-year performance, NOBL leads with 9.00% vs 7.13% for CPSP. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CPSP has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NOBL or CPSP?

Over the 1-year period, NOBL has performed better with a 9.00% return vs 7.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NOBL or CPSP?

NOBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CPSP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NOBL or CPSP?

NOBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 0.00% for CPSP.

What is the main difference between NOBL and CPSP?

NOBL is categorized as Dividend, while CPSP is S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for NOBL and 0.69% for CPSP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CPSP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.08 vs 0.80), 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.