CICVX vs. LBFFX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CICVX (Calamos Convertible Fund) and LBFFX (Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds. Over the past 10 years, CICVX returned 12.56%/yr vs 13.36%/yr for LBFFX. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CICVX charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.93%/yr for LBFFX.

Performance

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Convertible Fund (CICVX) and Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F (LBFFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CICVX achieves a 26.40% return, which is significantly higher than LBFFX's 22.45% return. Over the past 10 years, CICVX has underperformed LBFFX with an annualized return of 12.56%, while LBFFX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.36% annualized return.

CICVX

• 1D: 1.49%
• 1M: 7.82%
• YTD: 26.40%
• 6M: 26.09%
• 1Y: 46.23%
• 3Y*: 20.94%
• 5Y*: 8.59%
• 10Y*: 12.56%

LBFFX

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 5.66%
• YTD: 22.45%
• 6M: 22.84%
• 1Y: 42.04%
• 3Y*: 21.29%
• 5Y*: 7.29%
• 10Y*: 13.36%

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

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CICVX Calamos Convertible Fund	26.40%	19.03%	9.94%	10.95%	-21.02%	5.36%	48.84%	19.51%	0.59%	14.21%
LBFFX Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F	22.45%	22.11%	13.82%	7.16%	-23.30%	1.26%	64.16%	24.19%	-5.89%	16.68%

Correlation

The correlation between CICVX and LBFFX is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2007	0.94

The correlation between CICVX and LBFFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CICVX vs. LBFFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CICVX

CICVX Risk / Return Rank: 91
CICVX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CICVX Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CICVX Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CICVX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CICVX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

LBFFX

LBFFX Risk / Return Rank: 88
LBFFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LBFFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
LBFFX Omega Ratio Rank: 78
LBFFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
LBFFX Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Convertible Fund (CICVX) and Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F (LBFFX). 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.

	CICVX	LBFFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.21	2.93	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.11	3.81	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.51	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.18	6.10	+0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.05	22.79	+1.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CICVX Sharpe Ratio is 3.21, which is comparable to the LBFFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CICVX and LBFFX, 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

	CICVX	LBFFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.21	2.93	+0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67	0.56	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.98	0.98	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.69	-0.33

Drawdowns

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CICVX drawdown since its inception was -49.33%, which is greater than LBFFX's maximum drawdown of -41.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CICVX and LBFFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CICVX	LBFFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.33%	-41.13%	-8.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.70%	-7.07%	-0.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.79%	-12.15%	-2.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.17%	-30.86%	+3.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.17%	-33.61%	+6.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.48%	-10.31%	-7.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.98%	1.89%	+0.09%

Volatility

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Convertible Fund (CICVX) and Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F (LBFFX) have volatilities of 5.22% and 5.38%, 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

	CICVX	LBFFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.22%	5.38%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.17%	12.19%	-0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.86%	14.72%	+0.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.89%	13.00%	-0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.89%	13.67%	-0.78%

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CICVX has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than LBFFX's 0.93% expense ratio.

Dividends

CICVX vs. LBFFX - Dividend Comparison

CICVX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.97%, more than LBFFX's 1.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CICVX Calamos Convertible Fund	9.97%	12.51%	1.83%	2.48%	0.94%	15.90%	7.74%	1.39%	16.75%	4.55%	3.43%	5.41%
LBFFX Lord Abbett Convertible Fund Class F	1.22%	1.80%	2.22%	1.95%	2.60%	18.44%	16.27%	8.71%	4.91%	2.47%	3.64%	3.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CICVX and LBFFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, CICVX and LBFFX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CICVX or LBFFX?

LBFFX has higher volatility (5.38%) compared to CICVX (5.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CICVX dropped -49.33% vs LBFFX's -41.13%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CICVX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.21 vs 2.93), 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.