CXGCX vs. MCIFX
Compare and contrast key facts about Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX) and Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX).
CXGCX is managed by Calamos. It was launched on Dec 30, 2014. MCIFX is managed by Miller Investment. It was launched on Dec 26, 2007.
Performance
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CXGCX Calamos Global Convertible Fund | -1.10% | 18.49% | 10.98% | 13.48% | -22.06% | -0.31% | 38.60% | 15.18% | -2.76% | 14.25% |
MCIFX Miller Convertible Bond Fund | -1.07% | 6.35% | 5.75% | 6.06% | -10.55% | 4.40% | 19.61% | 13.28% | -5.64% | 7.30% |
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CXGCX having a -1.10% return and MCIFX slightly higher at -1.07%. Over the past 10 years, CXGCX has outperformed MCIFX with an annualized return of 7.82%, while MCIFX has yielded a comparatively lower 5.25% annualized return.
CXGCX
- 1D
- -0.87%
- 1M
- -4.76%
- YTD
- -1.10%
- 6M
- -1.39%
- 1Y
- 15.13%
- 3Y*
- 11.98%
- 5Y*
- 2.67%
- 10Y*
- 7.82%
MCIFX
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- -3.88%
- YTD
- -1.07%
- 6M
- 0.59%
- 1Y
- 5.93%
- 3Y*
- 5.36%
- 5Y*
- 1.66%
- 10Y*
- 5.25%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Expense Ratio Comparison
CXGCX has a 1.03% expense ratio, which is higher than MCIFX's 0.97% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
CXGCX vs. MCIFX — Risk / Return Rank
CXGCX
MCIFX
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX) and Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX). 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.
| CXGCX | MCIFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.38 | 1.04 | +0.33 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.93 | 1.48 | +0.45 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.19 | +0.06 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.07 | 1.14 | +0.93 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.12 | 4.28 | +2.84 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CXGCX | MCIFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.38 | 1.04 | +0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 | 0.27 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.83 | 0.76 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.73 | 0.72 | +0.02 |
Correlation
The correlation between CXGCX and MCIFX is 0.77, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Dividend Comparison
CXGCX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.28%, more than MCIFX's 4.92% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CXGCX Calamos Global Convertible Fund | 5.28% | 5.15% | 0.00% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 14.77% | 8.19% | 2.36% | 5.75% | 3.73% | 2.22% | 1.30% |
MCIFX Miller Convertible Bond Fund | 4.92% | 4.10% | 4.12% | 3.55% | 3.99% | 7.69% | 3.43% | 2.96% | 5.31% | 5.59% | 2.45% | 2.46% |
Drawdowns
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CXGCX drawdown since its inception was -30.74%, which is greater than MCIFX's maximum drawdown of -29.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CXGCX and MCIFX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CXGCX | MCIFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.74% | -29.19% | -1.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.16% | -4.53% | -1.63% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.88% | -14.75% | -14.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -30.74% | -17.36% | -13.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.55% | -4.53% | -1.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.36% | -3.91% | -3.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.86% | 1.21% | +0.65% |
Volatility
CXGCX vs. MCIFX - Volatility Comparison
Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX) has a higher volatility of 3.72% compared to Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX) at 1.54%. This indicates that CXGCX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCIFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CXGCX | MCIFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.72% | 1.54% | +2.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.91% | 3.56% | +4.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.43% | 5.46% | +4.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.56% | 6.14% | +3.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 9.44% | 6.96% | +2.48% |