BGX vs. CSQ

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

BGX (Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund) and CSQ (Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund) are both mutual funds - BGX is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Blackstone, while CSQ is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Calamos. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, BGX returned 6.02%/yr vs 15.75%/yr for CSQ. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BGX charges 1.46%/yr vs 2.46%/yr for CSQ.

Performance

BGX vs. CSQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund (BGX) and Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund (CSQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGX achieves a -4.68% return, which is significantly lower than CSQ's 9.36% return. Over the past 10 years, BGX has underperformed CSQ with an annualized return of 6.02%, while CSQ has yielded a comparatively higher 15.75% annualized return.

BGX

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: -0.26%
• 6M: -5.00%
• YTD: -4.68%
• 1Y: -7.16%
• 3Y*: 7.20%
• 5Y*: 2.92%
• 10Y*: 6.02%

CSQ

• 1D: -1.32%
• 1M: 1.21%
• 6M: 7.90%
• YTD: 9.36%
• 1Y: 18.79%
• 3Y*: 18.54%
• 5Y*: 10.47%
• 10Y*: 15.75%

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

BGX vs. CSQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BGX Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund	-4.68%	2.09%	19.83%	18.92%	-20.57%	17.54%	-5.67%	24.98%	-4.19%	7.28%
CSQ Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund	9.36%	16.25%	28.11%	20.80%	-24.26%	30.77%	26.22%	38.62%	-4.89%	27.98%

Correlation

The correlation between BGX and CSQ is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2011	0.35

Return for Risk

BGX vs. CSQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGX

BGX Risk / Return Rank: 1
BGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
BGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
BGX Omega Ratio Rank: 0
BGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
BGX Martin Ratio Rank: 1

CSQ

CSQ Risk / Return Rank: 25
CSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 26
CSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

BGX vs. CSQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund (BGX) and Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund (CSQ). 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.

	BGX	CSQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.92	1.22	-2.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.28	1.71	-2.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.22	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.58	1.24	-1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.11	5.25	-6.36

BGX vs. CSQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGX Sharpe Ratio is -0.92, which is lower than the CSQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGX and CSQ, 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

BGX vs. CSQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGX drawdown since its inception was -47.40%, smaller than the maximum CSQ drawdown of -67.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGX and CSQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGX	CSQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.40%	-67.17%	+19.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.43%	-15.25%	+2.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.08%	-24.18%	+10.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.94%	-33.09%	+7.15%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-47.40%	-48.21%	+0.81%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.33%	-2.27%	-6.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.99%	-9.29%	+2.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.45%	3.59%	+2.86%

Volatility

BGX vs. CSQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund (BGX) is 1.30%, while Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund (CSQ) has a volatility of 4.85%. This indicates that BGX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGX	CSQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.30%	4.85%	-3.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.74%	12.86%	-7.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.80%	15.51%	-7.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.66%	20.15%	-8.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.50%	23.01%	-5.51%

BGX vs. CSQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGX has a 1.46% expense ratio, which is lower than CSQ's 2.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGX vs. CSQ - Dividend Comparison

BGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.12%, more than CSQ's 6.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGX Blackstone Long-Short Credit Income Fund	9.12%	8.87%	9.89%	11.71%	8.15%	7.01%	8.76%	9.35%	11.74%	7.12%	9.01%	8.72%
CSQ Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund	6.85%	6.51%	6.95%	8.27%	9.17%	6.38%	7.03%	7.14%	9.35%	8.20%	9.64%	10.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGX and CSQ in my portfolio?

BGX and CSQ have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BGX or CSQ?

CSQ has higher volatility (4.85%) compared to BGX (1.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGX dropped -47.40% vs CSQ's -67.17%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs -0.92), 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.