QBF vs. CBTJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QBF (Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly) and CBTJ (Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January) are both Blockchain funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QBF returned -37.30% vs -31.54% for CBTJ. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. QBF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CBTJ.

Performance

QBF vs. CBTJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) 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, QBF achieves a -27.01% return, which is significantly lower than CBTJ's -19.03% return.

QBF

• 1D: -3.18%
• 1M: -14.78%
• YTD: -27.01%
• 6M: -27.39%
• 1Y: -37.30%
• 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)

QBF vs. CBTJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	-27.01%	-14.76%
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	-19.03%	-11.34%

Correlation

The correlation between QBF and CBTJ is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025	0.96

The correlation between QBF and CBTJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QBF vs. CBTJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBF

QBF Risk / Return Rank: 1
QBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
QBF Omega Ratio Rank: 1
QBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
QBF Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

QBF vs. CBTJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) 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.

	QBF	CBTJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.38	-1.17	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.08	-1.67	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.78	0.81	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.81	-0.77	-0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.43	-1.25	-0.18

QBF vs. CBTJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBF Sharpe Ratio is -1.38, which is comparable to the CBTJ Sharpe Ratio of -1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBF 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

QBF vs. CBTJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBF drawdown since its inception was -46.35%, which is greater than CBTJ's maximum drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBF and CBTJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBF	CBTJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.35%	-40.98%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-46.35%	-40.98%	-5.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-45.44%	-40.91%	-4.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.82%	-16.03%	-1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	26.21%	25.32%	+0.89%

Volatility

QBF vs. CBTJ - Volatility Comparison

Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly (QBF) has a higher volatility of 10.57% compared to Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January (CBTJ) at 5.30%. This indicates that QBF'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

	QBF	CBTJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.57%	5.30%	+5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.27%	18.24%	+2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.20%	27.04%	+0.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.01%	25.36%	+3.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.01%	25.36%	+3.65%

QBF vs. CBTJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CBTJ's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBF vs. CBTJ - Dividend Comparison

QBF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.89%, more than CBTJ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
CBTJ Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January	1.79%	1.45%
QBF Innovator Uncapped Bitcoin 20 Floor ETF - Quarterly	1.89%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBF and CBTJ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, QBF and CBTJ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QBF or CBTJ?

QBF has higher volatility (10.57%) compared to CBTJ (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBF dropped -46.35% vs CBTJ's -40.98%.

Which ETF is better, QBF or CBTJ?

On 1-year performance, CBTJ leads with -31.54% vs -37.30% for QBF. On fees, CBTJ is cheaper at 0.69% 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, QBF or CBTJ?

Over the 1-year period, CBTJ has performed better with a -31.54% return vs -37.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBF or CBTJ?

CBTJ is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QBF.

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

QBF has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.79% for CBTJ.

What is the main difference between QBF and CBTJ?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBF and 0.69% for CBTJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CBTJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.17 vs -1.38), 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.