BGB vs. CCLFX

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BGB (Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund) and CCLFX (Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund) are both High Yield Bonds funds. Over the past 5 years, BGB returned 4.87%/yr vs 8.74%/yr for CCLFX. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BGB charges 2.36%/yr vs 3.42%/yr for CCLFX.

Performance

BGB vs. CCLFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund (BGB) and Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGB achieves a -0.47% return, which is significantly lower than CCLFX's 3.08% return.

BGB

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 0.67%
• 6M: -1.55%
• YTD: -0.47%
• 1Y: -0.80%
• 3Y*: 10.83%
• 5Y*: 4.87%
• 10Y*: 6.33%

CCLFX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.54%
• 6M: 2.79%
• YTD: 3.08%
• 1Y: 6.95%
• 3Y*: 10.26%
• 5Y*: 8.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

BGB vs. CCLFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BGB Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund	-0.47%	4.80%	18.69%	19.50%	-16.06%	15.41%	-4.69%	7.32%
CCLFX Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund	3.08%	8.93%	12.62%	12.66%	2.32%	10.38%	8.73%	2.12%

Correlation

The correlation between BGB and CCLFX is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.11
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2019	0.12

Return for Risk

BGB vs. CCLFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGB

BGB Risk / Return Rank: 2
BGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
BGB Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BGB Martin Ratio Rank: 3

CCLFX

CCLFX Risk / Return Rank: 100
CCLFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CCLFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CCLFX Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CCLFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CCLFX Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

BGB vs. CCLFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund (BGB) and Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX). 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.

	BGB	CCLFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	8.39	-8.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.10	19.23	-19.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	6.96	-5.97
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.09	37.51	-37.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.18	206.00	-206.18

BGB vs. CCLFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGB Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the CCLFX Sharpe Ratio of 8.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGB and CCLFX, 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

BGB vs. CCLFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGB drawdown since its inception was -44.87%, which is greater than CCLFX's maximum drawdown of -3.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGB and CCLFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGB	CCLFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.87%	-3.91%	-40.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.06%	-0.19%	-8.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.77%	-0.46%	-12.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.23%	-2.25%	-18.98%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.87%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.85%	0.00%	-3.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.96%	-0.16%	-5.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.57%	0.03%	+4.54%

Volatility

BGB vs. CCLFX - Volatility Comparison

Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund (BGB) has a higher volatility of 0.84% compared to Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX) at 0.25%. This indicates that BGB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCLFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGB	CCLFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.84%	0.25%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.39%	0.64%	+4.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.59%	0.85%	+6.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.87%	1.73%	+9.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.07%	1.86%	+14.21%

BGB vs. CCLFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGB has a 2.36% expense ratio, which is lower than CCLFX's 3.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGB vs. CCLFX - Dividend Comparison

BGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.44%, less than CCLFX's 10.10% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGB Blackstone GSO Strategic Credit Closed Fund	8.44%	8.58%	9.26%	10.69%	7.35%	6.63%	8.77%	9.30%	11.18%	7.35%	8.76%	9.42%
CCLFX Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund	10.10%	10.47%	11.27%	10.96%	3.96%	7.03%	6.90%	0.61%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGB and CCLFX in my portfolio?

BGB and CCLFX have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BGB or CCLFX?

BGB has higher volatility (0.84%) compared to CCLFX (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGB dropped -44.87% vs CCLFX's -3.91%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCLFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (8.39 vs -0.11), 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.