NODE vs. CBTJ
NODE (VanEck Onchain Economy ETF) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NODE returned 71.73% vs -30.36% for CBTJ. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.69% expense ratio.
Performance
NODE vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NODE achieves a 33.28% return, which is significantly higher than CBTJ's -16.58% return.
NODE
- 1D
- -1.79%
- 1M
- 10.04%
- YTD
- 33.28%
- 6M
- 21.22%
- 1Y
- 71.73%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CBTJ
- 1D
- -1.44%
- 1M
- -10.52%
- YTD
- -16.58%
- 6M
- -22.65%
- 1Y
- -30.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NODE vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NODE VanEck Onchain Economy ETF | 33.28% | 32.44% |
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | -16.58% | -14.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between NODE 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 May 15, 2025 | 0.68 |
The correlation between NODE and CBTJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
NODE vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank
NODE
CBTJ
NODE vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Onchain Economy ETF (NODE) 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.
| NODE | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.59 | -1.12 | +2.71 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.12 | -1.59 | +3.71 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 0.82 | +0.44 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.04 | -0.78 | +2.82 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.50 | -1.29 | +5.78 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NODE | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.59 | -1.12 | +2.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.62 | -0.80 | +2.41 |
Drawdowns
NODE vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NODE drawdown since its inception was -35.35%, smaller than the maximum CBTJ drawdown of -39.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NODE and CBTJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NODE | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.35% | -39.12% | +3.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.35% | -39.12% | +3.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.42% | -39.12% | +36.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.30% | -15.13% | +3.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.00% | 23.62% | -7.62% |
Volatility
NODE vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Onchain Economy ETF (NODE) has a higher volatility of 12.39% compared to Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) at 4.87%. This indicates that NODE'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NODE | CBTJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.39% | 4.87% | +7.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.83% | 19.34% | +15.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 45.44% | 27.13% | +18.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 44.59% | 25.64% | +18.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 44.59% | 25.64% | +18.95% |
NODE vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both NODE and CBTJ have an expense ratio of 0.69%.
Dividends
NODE vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison
NODE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.84%, less than CBTJ's 1.74% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January | 1.74% | 1.45% |
NODE VanEck Onchain Economy ETF | 0.84% | 1.12% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NODE 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.
NODE has higher volatility (12.39%) compared to CBTJ (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NODE dropped -35.35% vs CBTJ's -39.12%.
On 1-year performance, NODE leads with 71.73% vs -30.36% for CBTJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.69% expense ratio. On volatility, CBTJ has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, NODE has performed better with a 71.73% return vs -30.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NODE and CBTJ have the same expense ratio: 0.69% per year.
CBTJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 0.84% for NODE.
They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Calamos.
NODE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs -1.12), 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.
Find the right allocation for NODE 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