IMRFX vs. CHW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IMRFX (Columbia Global Opportunities Fund) and CHW (Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund) are both Global Allocation funds. Over the past 10 years, IMRFX returned 6.17%/yr vs 12.98%/yr for CHW. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IMRFX charges 1.15%/yr vs 2.63%/yr for CHW.

Performance

IMRFX vs. CHW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Global Opportunities Fund (IMRFX) and Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMRFX achieves a 6.33% return, which is significantly lower than CHW's 22.87% return. Over the past 10 years, IMRFX has underperformed CHW with an annualized return of 6.17%, while CHW has yielded a comparatively higher 12.98% annualized return.

IMRFX

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 6.33%
• 6M: 5.94%
• 1Y: 17.31%
• 3Y*: 11.67%
• 5Y*: 3.22%
• 10Y*: 6.17%

CHW

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 23.20%
• 1Y: 40.18%
• 3Y*: 25.02%
• 5Y*: 5.20%
• 10Y*: 12.98%

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

IMRFX vs. CHW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMRFX Columbia Global Opportunities Fund	6.33%	15.88%	7.46%	11.29%	-21.02%	6.25%	12.55%	15.62%	-7.03%	18.17%
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	22.87%	19.55%	27.82%	14.55%	-37.74%	13.07%	22.28%	47.12%	-20.33%	43.78%

Correlation

The correlation between IMRFX and CHW is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2007	0.67

The correlation between IMRFX and CHW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IMRFX vs. CHW — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMRFX

IMRFX Risk / Return Rank: 44
IMRFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
IMRFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
IMRFX Omega Ratio Rank: 46
IMRFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
IMRFX Martin Ratio Rank: 48

CHW

CHW Risk / Return Rank: 64
CHW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
CHW Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CHW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CHW Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CHW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

IMRFX vs. CHW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Global Opportunities Fund (IMRFX) and Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	IMRFX	CHW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	2.41	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	3.17	-0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.42	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.24	2.60	-0.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.47	9.77	-0.29

IMRFX vs. CHW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMRFX Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the CHW Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMRFX and CHW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IMRFX vs. CHW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMRFX drawdown since its inception was -45.67%, smaller than the maximum CHW drawdown of -66.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMRFX and CHW.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMRFX	CHW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.67%	-66.94%	+21.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.07%	-15.51%	+7.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.19%	-20.40%	+10.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.77%	-46.11%	+17.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.77%	-53.58%	+24.81%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.77%	-2.94%	+2.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.32%	-14.85%	+7.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	4.12%	-2.22%

Volatility

IMRFX vs. CHW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Global Opportunities Fund (IMRFX) is 3.65%, while Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) has a volatility of 6.51%. This indicates that IMRFX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CHW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMRFX	CHW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	6.51%	-2.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.34%	14.54%	-6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.89%	16.75%	-6.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.00%	19.21%	-8.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.46%	22.34%	-11.88%

IMRFX vs. CHW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMRFX has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CHW's 2.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMRFX vs. CHW - Dividend Comparison

IMRFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.81%, more than CHW's 6.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CHW Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund	6.80%	8.10%	8.89%	10.40%	13.62%	8.43%	8.79%	9.67%	12.82%	9.25%	12.05%	11.73%
IMRFX Columbia Global Opportunities Fund	16.81%	17.87%	0.47%	0.00%	6.62%	7.92%	4.40%	1.75%	0.35%	0.00%	2.77%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMRFX and CHW in my portfolio?

IMRFX and CHW have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMRFX or CHW?

CHW has higher volatility (6.51%) compared to IMRFX (3.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMRFX dropped -45.67% vs CHW's -66.94%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CHW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.83), 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.