GILAX vs. FGIPX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GILAX (Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund) and FGIPX (Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, GILAX returned 9.89%/yr vs 13.12%/yr for FGIPX. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GILAX charges 1.71%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FGIPX.

Performance

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund (GILAX) and Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class (FGIPX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GILAX achieves a 3.39% return, which is significantly lower than FGIPX's 18.05% return. Over the past 10 years, GILAX has underperformed FGIPX with an annualized return of 9.89%, while FGIPX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.12% annualized return.

GILAX

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: -0.64%
• YTD: 3.39%
• 6M: 3.77%
• 1Y: 18.20%
• 3Y*: 17.04%
• 5Y*: 9.65%
• 10Y*: 9.89%

FGIPX

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 7.15%
• YTD: 18.05%
• 6M: 22.61%
• 1Y: 44.81%
• 3Y*: 26.79%
• 5Y*: 16.57%
• 10Y*: 13.12%

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

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GILAX Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund	3.39%	16.30%	19.60%	12.26%	-10.02%	28.08%	2.02%	21.75%	-9.73%	11.44%
FGIPX Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class	18.05%	30.18%	15.44%	12.17%	3.28%	21.73%	-4.59%	25.96%	-9.95%	18.52%

Correlation

The correlation between GILAX and FGIPX is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2013	0.92

The correlation between GILAX and FGIPX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GILAX vs. FGIPX — Risk / Return Rank

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

GILAX

GILAX Risk / Return Rank: 40
GILAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
GILAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
GILAX Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GILAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
GILAX Martin Ratio Rank: 46

FGIPX

FGIPX Risk / Return Rank: 96
FGIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FGIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FGIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FGIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FGIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund (GILAX) and Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class (FGIPX). 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.

	GILAX	FGIPX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	4.03	-2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	5.56	-2.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.73	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.45	6.33	-3.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.60	24.22	-14.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GILAX Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is lower than the FGIPX Sharpe Ratio of 4.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GILAX and FGIPX, 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

	GILAX	FGIPX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	4.03	-2.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	1.12	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	0.77	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.74	-0.21

Drawdowns

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GILAX drawdown since its inception was -47.62%, which is greater than FGIPX's maximum drawdown of -37.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GILAX and FGIPX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GILAX	FGIPX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.62%	-37.32%	-10.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.67%	-7.26%	-0.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.32%	-13.27%	-3.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.46%	-16.19%	-4.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.77%	-37.32%	-1.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.16%	0.00%	-2.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.84%	-4.18%	-1.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.96%	1.89%	+0.07%

Volatility

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Volatility Comparison

Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund (GILAX) and Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class (FGIPX) have volatilities of 2.66% and 2.79%, 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

	GILAX	FGIPX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	2.79%	-0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.09%	8.23%	-0.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.55%	11.40%	-0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.57%	14.89%	+0.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.96%	17.12%	+0.84%

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Expense Ratio Comparison

GILAX has a 1.71% expense ratio, which is higher than FGIPX's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

GILAX vs. FGIPX - Dividend Comparison

GILAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.60%, less than FGIPX's 10.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FGIPX Nomura Growth and Income Fund Institutional Class	10.00%	11.68%	12.69%	7.50%	7.35%	12.20%	2.13%	52.72%	25.63%	5.58%	4.22%	5.88%
GILAX Lord Abbett Fundamental Equity Fund	8.60%	8.89%	7.47%	0.14%	5.58%	13.50%	0.84%	11.27%	9.48%	12.37%	4.89%	10.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GILAX and FGIPX in my portfolio?

GILAX and FGIPX have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GILAX or FGIPX?

FGIPX has higher volatility (2.79%) compared to GILAX (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GILAX dropped -47.62% vs FGIPX's -37.32%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FGIPX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.03 vs 1.79), 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.