CPNM vs IVV

CPNM vs IVV

Which is better, CPNM or IVV?

Option Writing against Large Cap Blend.

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92.

Lower Fees: IVVHigher Returns: IVV

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

MetricCPNMIVV
Expense Ratio0.69%0.03%Best
AUM$15M$876.4B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.06%
Holdings5508
YTD Return+4.06%+12.27%Best
1Y Return+6.05%+17.04%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+21.24%
5Y Return (annualized)-+13.08%
Volatility (annualized)2.0%Best12.0%
Max Drawdown-1.9%Best-14.7%
$10,000 over 1.5 years$11,068$13,196Best
Fund FamilyCalamos InvestmentsiShares by BlackRock (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleOption WritingLarge Cap Blend
InceptionMar 3, 2025May 15, 2000

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 3, 2025 to Sep 17, 2026 (1.5 years).

CPNM vs IVV 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 1.5 years both funds cover.

CPNM vs IVV Performance

Calamos Nasdaq-100 Structured Alt Protection ETF - March (CPNM) is an ETF from Calamos Investments and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CPNM returned +6.05% while IVV returned +17.04%. Year to date, CPNM is up 4.06% versus a gain of 12.27% for IVV.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.0% compared with 2.0% for CPNM. 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 -1.9% for CPNM and -14.7% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.

Fees and Cost Over Time

CPNM charges 0.69% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $3 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CPNM currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for IVV.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of CPNM and IVV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

CPNMIVV

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, CPNM or IVV?

CPNM has an expense ratio of 0.69% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, CPNM or IVV?

Over the past year CPNM returned +6.05% vs +17.04% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CPNM annualized +7.00% vs +20.31% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, CPNM or IVV?

IVV has been the more volatile fund at 12.0% annualized versus 2.0% for CPNM. Worst drawdown: CPNM -1.9% vs IVV -14.7%.

Should I hold both CPNM and IVV?

CPNM and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, CPNM or IVV?

CPNM yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.06%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is IVV better than CPNM?

IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.