CLDAX vs. QDIBX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CLDAX (Calvert Core Bond Fund) and QDIBX (Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Over the past 5 years, CLDAX returned -0.14%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for QDIBX. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CLDAX charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for QDIBX.

Performance

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calvert Core Bond Fund (CLDAX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLDAX achieves a 0.02% return, which is significantly higher than QDIBX's -0.11% return.

CLDAX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.48%
• YTD: 0.02%
• 6M: -0.01%
• 1Y: 5.08%
• 3Y*: 3.71%
• 5Y*: -0.14%
• 10Y*: 3.06%

QDIBX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: -0.11%
• 6M: -0.20%
• 1Y: 4.79%
• 3Y*: 4.40%
• 5Y*: 0.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CLDAX Calvert Core Bond Fund	0.02%	7.27%	1.39%	5.04%	-13.48%	-2.30%	14.56%	-0.58%
QDIBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	-0.11%	7.72%	1.66%	6.71%	-14.11%	-0.17%	6.77%	-0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between CLDAX and QDIBX is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2019	0.86

The correlation between CLDAX and QDIBX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CLDAX vs. QDIBX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLDAX

CLDAX Risk / Return Rank: 19
CLDAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CLDAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
CLDAX Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CLDAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
CLDAX Martin Ratio Rank: 18

QDIBX

QDIBX Risk / Return Rank: 19
QDIBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
QDIBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
QDIBX Omega Ratio Rank: 19
QDIBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
QDIBX Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calvert Core Bond Fund (CLDAX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX). 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.

	CLDAX	QDIBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	1.26	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	1.88	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.23	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.57	1.62	-0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.92	4.93	-0.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLDAX Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is comparable to the QDIBX Sharpe Ratio of 1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLDAX and QDIBX, 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

	CLDAX	QDIBX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.29	1.26	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03	0.03	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.82	0.16	+0.66

Drawdowns

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLDAX drawdown since its inception was -18.88%, roughly equal to the maximum QDIBX drawdown of -19.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLDAX and QDIBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLDAX	QDIBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.88%	-19.63%	+0.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.24%	-2.97%	-0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.09%	-5.37%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.21%	-19.63%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-18.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.41%	-1.87%	-1.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.92%	-6.39%	+2.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.03%	0.97%	+0.06%

Volatility

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Volatility Comparison

Calvert Core Bond Fund (CLDAX) has a higher volatility of 1.50% compared to Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX) at 1.32%. This indicates that CLDAX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QDIBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLDAX	QDIBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.50%	1.32%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.94%	2.62%	+0.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.95%	3.82%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.64%	6.59%	-0.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.81%	6.26%	+0.55%

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLDAX has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than QDIBX's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLDAX vs. QDIBX - Dividend Comparison

CLDAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, more than QDIBX's 3.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CLDAX Calvert Core Bond Fund	4.23%	4.24%	4.16%	3.17%	1.80%	6.08%	5.22%	3.04%	3.63%	3.02%	7.02%	2.85%
QDIBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	3.50%	3.50%	3.55%	3.65%	2.51%	1.80%	3.25%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLDAX and QDIBX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CLDAX and QDIBX 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, CLDAX or QDIBX?

CLDAX has higher volatility (1.50%) compared to QDIBX (1.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLDAX dropped -18.88% vs QDIBX's -19.63%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLDAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 1.26), 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.