THNQ vs. CEFS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

THNQ (ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - THNQ is a Technology Equities fund tracking the ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence Index, while CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. THNQ is passively managed, while CEFS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, THNQ returned 15.08%/yr vs 14.29%/yr for CEFS. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. THNQ charges 0.68%/yr vs 2.61%/yr for CEFS.

Performance

THNQ vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (THNQ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, THNQ achieves a 36.10% return, which is significantly higher than CEFS's 15.16% return.

THNQ

• 1D: -3.25%
• 1M: 2.00%
• YTD: 36.10%
• 6M: 33.52%
• 1Y: 66.41%
• 3Y*: 35.10%
• 5Y*: 15.08%
• 10Y*: —

CEFS

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 4.16%
• YTD: 15.16%
• 6M: 16.21%
• 1Y: 26.43%
• 3Y*: 22.09%
• 5Y*: 14.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

THNQ vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
THNQ ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF	36.10%	29.83%	18.82%	56.81%	-39.84%	9.10%	60.92%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	15.16%	16.67%	23.48%	20.99%	-7.08%	17.86%	26.76%

Correlation

The correlation between THNQ and CEFS is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2020	0.51

The correlation between THNQ and CEFS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

THNQ vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

THNQ

THNQ Risk / Return Rank: 70
THNQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
THNQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
THNQ Omega Ratio Rank: 65
THNQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
THNQ Martin Ratio Rank: 66

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 86
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

THNQ vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (THNQ) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.

	THNQ	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.57	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	3.70	-0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.49	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.63	4.68	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.47	17.98	-6.52

THNQ vs. CEFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current THNQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the CEFS Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of THNQ and CEFS, 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

THNQ vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum THNQ drawdown since its inception was -50.56%, which is greater than CEFS's maximum drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for THNQ and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	THNQ	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.56%	-38.99%	-11.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.39%	-5.67%	-12.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.88%	-13.37%	-16.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.56%	-16.85%	-33.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.60%	-0.23%	-7.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.00%	-3.65%	-11.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.81%	1.47%	+4.34%

Volatility

THNQ vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison

ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (THNQ) has a higher volatility of 13.15% compared to Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) at 4.04%. This indicates that THNQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	THNQ	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.15%	4.04%	+9.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.09%	9.01%	+14.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.49%	10.34%	+18.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.48%	13.16%	+16.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.89%	15.33%	+13.56%

THNQ vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

THNQ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 2.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

THNQ vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

THNQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than CEFS's 7.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.01%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%
THNQ ROBO Global Artificial Intelligence ETF	0.15%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both THNQ and CEFS in my portfolio?

THNQ and CEFS have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, THNQ or CEFS?

THNQ has higher volatility (13.15%) compared to CEFS (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, THNQ dropped -50.56% vs CEFS's -38.99%.

Which ETF is better, THNQ or CEFS?

On 5-year performance, THNQ leads with 15.08% vs 14.29% for CEFS. On fees, THNQ is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, CEFS has been the lower-risk option at 4.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, THNQ or CEFS?

Over the 5-year period, THNQ has performed better with a 15.08% return vs 14.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, THNQ or CEFS?

THNQ is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, THNQ or CEFS?

CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.01%, compared with 0.15% for THNQ.

What is the main difference between THNQ and CEFS?

THNQ is categorized as Technology Equities, while CEFS is Event Driven. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for THNQ and 2.61% for CEFS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 2.34), 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.