CBOY vs CBTY
Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - July vs Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - July
Which is better, CBOY or CBTY?
CBOY has been ahead.
CBOY led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99.
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 | CBOY | CBTY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69%Tie | 0.69%Tie |
| AUM | $5M | $6M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.33% | 1.44% |
| Holdings | 7 | 7 |
| YTD Return | +2.39%Best | +0.72% |
| 1Y Return | +0.47%Best | -11.58% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 2.9%Best | 16.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -4.0%Best | -27.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $10,229Best | $9,050 |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | Calamos Investments |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Inception | Jul 8, 2025 | Jul 8, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight, Style.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 8, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.3 years).
CBOY vs CBTY 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 1.3 years both funds cover.
CBOY vs CBTY Performance
Calamos Bitcoin Structured Alt Protection ETF - July (CBOY) is an ETF from Calamos Investments and Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - July (CBTY) is an ETF from Calamos Investments. Over the past year CBOY returned +0.47% while CBTY returned -11.58%. Year to date, CBOY is up 2.39% versus a gain of 0.72% for CBTY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CBTY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.3% compared with 2.9% for CBOY. 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 -4.0% for CBOY and -27.8% for CBTY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CBOY charges 0.69% per year while CBTY charges 0.69%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $69 annually. On income, CBOY currently yields 1.33% against 1.44% for CBTY.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CBOY and CBTY 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, CBOY or CBTY?
CBOY has an expense ratio of 0.69% while CBTY charges 0.69%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, CBOY or CBTY?
Over the past year CBOY returned +0.47% vs -11.58% for CBTY, so CBOY leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), CBOY annualized +1.76% vs -7.39% for CBTY. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CBOY or CBTY?
CBTY has been the more volatile fund at 16.3% annualized versus 2.9% for CBOY. Worst drawdown: CBOY -4.0% vs CBTY -27.8%.
Should I hold both CBOY and CBTY?
CBOY and CBTY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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, CBOY or CBTY?
CBOY yields 1.33% while CBTY yields 1.44%, so CBTY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is CBTY better than CBOY?
CBOY led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.