CHW vs. GBMFX

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

CHW (Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund) and GBMFX (GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund) are both Global Allocation funds. Over the past 10 years, CHW returned 12.29%/yr vs 6.88%/yr for GBMFX. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CHW charges 2.63%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for GBMFX.

Performance

CHW vs. GBMFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) and GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund (GBMFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CHW achieves a 20.64% return, which is significantly higher than GBMFX's 11.77% return. Over the past 10 years, CHW has outperformed GBMFX with an annualized return of 12.29%, while GBMFX has yielded a comparatively lower 6.88% annualized return.

CHW

• 1D: -3.43%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 20.64%
• 6M: 22.94%
• 1Y: 37.22%
• 3Y*: 24.68%
• 5Y*: 5.43%
• 10Y*: 12.29%

GBMFX

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 1.71%
• YTD: 11.77%
• 6M: 13.88%
• 1Y: 28.70%
• 3Y*: 16.54%
• 5Y*: 8.50%
• 10Y*: 6.88%

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

CHW vs. GBMFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	20.64%	19.55%	27.82%	14.55%	-37.74%	13.07%	22.28%	47.12%	-20.33%	43.78%
GBMFX GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund	11.77%	22.89%	4.33%	13.46%	-2.24%	2.97%	-2.50%	11.62%	-5.36%	13.05%

Correlation

The correlation between CHW and GBMFX is 0.50, 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	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 27, 2007	0.57

The correlation between CHW and GBMFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CHW vs. GBMFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CHW

CHW Risk / Return Rank: 53
CHW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CHW Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CHW Omega Ratio Rank: 58
CHW Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
CHW Martin Ratio Rank: 45

GBMFX

GBMFX Risk / Return Rank: 95
GBMFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
GBMFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
GBMFX Omega Ratio Rank: 96
GBMFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
GBMFX Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. GBMFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) and GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund (GBMFX). 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.

	CHW	GBMFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.29	4.05	-1.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	5.84	-2.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.81	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	4.96	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.25	19.07	-9.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CHW vs. GBMFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CHW Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is lower than the GBMFX Sharpe Ratio of 4.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CHW and GBMFX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CHW	GBMFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.29	4.05	-1.76
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	1.17	-0.89
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	0.86	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.99	-0.70

Drawdowns

CHW vs. GBMFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CHW drawdown since its inception was -66.94%, which is greater than GBMFX's maximum drawdown of -23.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CHW and GBMFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CHW	GBMFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.94%	-23.40%	-43.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.51%	-5.78%	-9.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.40%	-7.16%	-13.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.11%	-14.35%	-31.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.58%	-23.40%	-30.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.70%	-0.18%	-4.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.88%	-3.27%	-11.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.03%	1.50%	+2.53%

Volatility

CHW vs. GBMFX - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) has a higher volatility of 7.17% compared to GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund (GBMFX) at 1.98%. This indicates that CHW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBMFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CHW	GBMFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.17%	1.98%	+5.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.09%	5.47%	+8.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.34%	7.08%	+9.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.17%	7.30%	+11.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.33%	8.00%	+14.33%

CHW vs. GBMFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CHW has a 2.63% expense ratio, which is higher than GBMFX's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

CHW vs. GBMFX - Dividend Comparison

CHW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.88%, more than GBMFX's 3.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	6.88%	8.10%	8.89%	10.40%	13.62%	8.43%	8.79%	9.67%	12.82%	9.25%	12.05%	11.73%
GBMFX GMO Benchmark-Free Allocation Fund	3.72%	4.16%	5.14%	5.64%	3.20%	2.46%	3.73%	3.35%	3.67%	2.39%	1.60%	2.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CHW and GBMFX in my portfolio?

CHW and GBMFX have a correlation of 0.50, 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 GBMFX?

CHW has higher volatility (7.17%) compared to GBMFX (1.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CHW dropped -66.94% vs GBMFX's -23.40%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GBMFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.05 vs 2.29), 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.