CGO vs. CHW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CGO (Calamos Global Total Return Fund) and CHW (Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund) are both Global Allocation funds from Calamos. CGO is passively managed, while CHW is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGO returned 12.60%/yr vs 13.18%/yr for CHW. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGO charges 2.86%/yr vs 2.63%/yr for CHW.

Performance

CGO vs. CHW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) and Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGO achieves a 26.70% return, which is significantly higher than CHW's 25.10% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CGO having a 12.60% annualized return and CHW not far ahead at 13.18%.

CGO

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: 3.72%
• YTD: 26.70%
• 6M: 27.13%
• 1Y: 34.66%
• 3Y*: 25.13%
• 5Y*: 6.38%
• 10Y*: 12.60%

CHW

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 4.54%
• YTD: 25.10%
• 6M: 27.14%
• 1Y: 43.35%
• 3Y*: 25.77%
• 5Y*: 5.74%
• 10Y*: 13.18%

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

CGO vs. CHW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGO Calamos Global Total Return Fund	26.70%	8.87%	36.81%	14.03%	-36.60%	13.04%	20.87%	45.08%	-26.14%	56.67%
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	25.10%	19.55%	27.82%	14.55%	-37.74%	13.07%	22.28%	47.12%	-20.33%	43.78%

Correlation

The correlation between CGO and CHW is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2007	0.58

Over the past year, CGO and CHW have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.58, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CGO vs. CHW — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGO

CGO Risk / Return Rank: 49
CGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CGO Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CGO Martin Ratio Rank: 38

CHW

CHW Risk / Return Rank: 71
CHW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CHW Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CHW Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CHW Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
CHW Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

CGO vs. CHW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) and Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW). 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.

	CGO	CHW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.62	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	3.42	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.46	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	2.81	-0.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.87	10.55	-2.68

CGO vs. CHW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGO Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the CHW Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGO and CHW, 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

CGO vs. CHW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGO drawdown since its inception was -60.03%, smaller than the maximum CHW drawdown of -66.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGO and CHW.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGO	CHW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.03%	-66.94%	+6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.24%	-15.51%	+0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.70%	-20.40%	-6.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.69%	-46.11%	+2.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.89%	-53.58%	+2.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-1.18%	+0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.54%	-14.85%	+3.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.42%	4.12%	+0.30%

Volatility

CGO vs. CHW - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) and Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) have volatilities of 6.69% and 6.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGO	CHW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.69%	6.40%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	14.41%	-0.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.59%	16.67%	-0.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.50%	19.20%	+1.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.75%	22.36%	+2.39%

CGO vs. CHW - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGO has a 2.86% expense ratio, which is higher than CHW's 2.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGO vs. CHW - Dividend Comparison

CGO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.87%, more than CHW's 6.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGO Calamos Global Total Return Fund	6.87%	8.43%	8.43%	10.57%	12.68%	7.80%	8.18%	8.96%	11.81%	7.97%	11.40%	10.51%
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	6.67%	8.10%	8.89%	10.40%	13.62%	8.43%	8.79%	9.67%	12.82%	9.25%	12.05%	11.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGO and CHW in my portfolio?

CGO and CHW have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGO or CHW?

CGO has higher volatility (6.69%) compared to CHW (6.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGO dropped -60.03% vs CHW's -66.94%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CHW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.62 vs 2.10), 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.