CHW vs. CGO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CHW (Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund) and CGO (Calamos Global Total Return Fund) are both Global Allocation funds from Calamos. CHW is actively managed, while CGO is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CHW returned 12.98%/yr vs 12.38%/yr for CGO. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CHW charges 2.63%/yr vs 2.86%/yr for CGO.

Performance

CHW vs. CGO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CHW achieves a 22.87% return, which is significantly lower than CGO's 24.25% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CHW having a 12.98% annualized return and CGO not far behind at 12.38%.

CHW

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 23.20%
• 1Y: 40.18%
• 3Y*: 25.02%
• 5Y*: 5.20%
• 10Y*: 12.98%

CGO

• 1D: -1.93%
• 1M: 1.72%
• YTD: 24.25%
• 6M: 23.70%
• 1Y: 31.36%
• 3Y*: 24.32%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: 12.38%

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

CHW vs. CGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	22.87%	19.55%	27.82%	14.55%	-37.74%	13.07%	22.28%	47.12%	-20.33%	43.78%
CGO Calamos Global Total Return Fund	24.25%	8.87%	36.81%	14.03%	-36.60%	13.04%	20.87%	45.08%	-26.14%	56.67%

Correlation

The correlation between CHW and CGO 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, CHW and CGO have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.58, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CHW vs. CGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CHW

CHW Risk / Return Rank: 64
CHW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
CHW Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CHW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CHW Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CHW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

CGO

CGO Risk / Return Rank: 40
CGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
CGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CGO Omega Ratio Rank: 44
CGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
CGO Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

CHW vs. CGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CHW	CGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	1.89	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	2.51	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.33	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.60	2.07	+0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.77	7.11	+2.65

CHW vs. CGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CHW Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the CGO Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CHW and CGO, 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

CHW vs. CGO - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	CHW	CGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.94%	-60.03%	-6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.51%	-15.24%	-0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.40%	-26.70%	+6.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.11%	-43.69%	-2.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.58%	-50.89%	-2.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-2.25%	-0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.85%	-11.54%	-3.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.12%	4.42%	-0.30%

Volatility

CHW vs. CGO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) is 6.51%, while Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) has a volatility of 6.97%. This indicates that CHW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CHW	CGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.51%	6.97%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.54%	14.14%	+0.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.75%	16.69%	+0.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.21%	20.51%	-1.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.34%	24.74%	-2.40%

CHW vs. CGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CHW vs. CGO - Dividend Comparison

CHW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.80%, less than CGO's 7.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGO Calamos Global Total Return Fund	7.00%	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	6.80%	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 CHW and CGO in my portfolio?

CHW and CGO 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, CHW or CGO?

CGO has higher volatility (6.97%) compared to CHW (6.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CHW dropped -66.94% vs CGO's -60.03%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CHW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.89), 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.