CBTA vs QQQ
Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, CBTA or QQQ?
Option Writing against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CBTA | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $6M | $483.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.44% |
| Holdings | 7 | 107 |
| YTD Return | -14.94% | +17.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | -26.49% | +21.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +25.63% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.24% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 27.1% | 19.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -39.8% | -12.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.4 years | $9,718 | $16,823Best |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Apr 7, 2025 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 7, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026 (1.4 years).
CBTA vs QQQ growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.4 years both funds cover.
CBTA vs QQQ Performance
Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - April (CBTA) is an ETF from Calamos Investments and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CBTA returned -26.49% while QQQ returned +21.77%. Year to date, CBTA is down 14.94% versus a gain of 17.95% for QQQ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CBTA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 27.1% compared with 19.7% for QQQ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -39.8% for CBTA and -12.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.44. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CBTA charges 0.69% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $18 annually, a gap of $51 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CBTA currently yields 1.06% against 0.44% for QQQ.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CBTA and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CBTA or QQQ?
CBTA has an expense ratio of 0.69% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $51 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CBTA or QQQ?
Over the past year CBTA returned -26.49% vs +21.77% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), CBTA annualized -2.02% vs +45.00% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CBTA or QQQ?
CBTA has been the more volatile fund at 27.1% annualized versus 19.7% for QQQ. Worst drawdown: CBTA -39.8% vs QQQ -12.0%.
Should I hold both CBTA and QQQ?
CBTA and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.44, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CBTA or QQQ?
CBTA yields 1.06% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so CBTA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than CBTA?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.