Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

CAIQ vs PBP: which paid, and which earned it?

CAIQ and PBP both write options for income.

Calamos Nasdaq Autocallable Income ETF and Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF.

13.7%CAIQ cash paid, 1 year
11.8%PBP cash paid, 1 year
+16.7%CAIQ total return, 1 year
+18.5%PBP total return, 1 year
CAIQ7 pts behind QQQ · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
QQQ+23.6%CAIQ+16.7%13.7% of it arrived as cash7 pts behind QQQTotal return, distributions reinvestedQQQ+23.6%CAIQ+16.7%13.7% cash7 pts behind QQQ
PBP1.9 pts ahead of SPY · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
SPY+16.6%PBP+18.5%11.8% of it arrived as cash1.9 pts ahead of SPYTotal return, distributions reinvestedSPY+16.6%PBP+18.5%1.9 pts ahead of SPY

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CAIQ and PBP hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in CAIQOnly in PBP
Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF 100.00%NVIDIA Corp 8.18%
Apple Inc 7.50%
Microsoft Corp 5.57%
Amazon.com Inc 3.77%
Alphabet Inc 3.11%
Broadcom Inc 2.57%
Alphabet Inc 2.47%
Meta Platforms Inc 2.22%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Sep 19, 2026.

Performance, window by window

CAIQ and PBP over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
CAIQPBPCAIQPBPCAIQPBP
3 months−0.5%+5.0%4.3%2.8%+1.9 pts+2.7 pts
6 months+16.5%+13.0%9.5%5.7%−7.7 pts−5.0 pts
1 yearnot published+18.5%not published11.8%not published+1.9 pts
3 yearsnot published+46.1%not published31.8%not published−32.3 pts
Since launch+16.7%+199.0%13.7%101.2%−7.0 pts−604.5 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
CAIQ and PBP on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CAIQ
Calamos Nasdaq Autocallable Income ETF
Option income on QQQ, paying monthly
PBP
Invesco S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF
Covered call on SPY, paying monthly
IssuerCalamosInvesco
Strategyoption incomecovered call
BenchmarkNasdaq-100 (QQQ)S&P 500 (SPY)
Paysmonthlymonthly
Payout rate, annualized17.9%11.3%
Expense ratio0.74%0.29%
Cash paid, 1 year13.7% (since launch on Nov 20, 2025)11.8%
Price change, 1 year+2.1%+5.5%
Total return, 1 year+16.7% (since launch on Nov 20, 2025)+18.5%
Benchmark return, 1 year+23.6%+16.6%
Ahead or behind−7.0 pts+1.9 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot publishednot published
Age302 days6101 days
Net assets$167m$386m

CAIQ in plain words

Over the period since launch on Nov 20, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026, CAIQ paid 13.7% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 2.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +16.7%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +23.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 7.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 17.9%, paid monthly.

PBP in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, PBP paid 11.8% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 5.5%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +18.5%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 1.9 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 11.3%, paid monthly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, CAIQ or PBP?
CAIQ charges 0.74% a year and PBP charges 0.29%, so PBP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

CAIQ against PBP, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CAIQ against PBP, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/caiq-vs-pbp Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources