LBFFX vs. CICVX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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

Performance

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

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%

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%

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

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
CICVX Calamos Convertible Fund	26.40%	19.03%	9.94%	10.95%	-21.02%	5.36%	48.84%	19.51%	0.59%	14.21%

Correlation

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

Return for Risk

LBFFX vs. CICVX — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	LBFFX	CICVX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.93	3.21	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	4.11	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.55	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.10	6.18	-0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.79	24.05	-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.

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

	LBFFX	CICVX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.93	3.21	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	0.67	-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	0.69	0.35	+0.33

Drawdowns

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Volatility Comparison

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

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

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LBFFX vs. CICVX - Dividend Comparison

LBFFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than CICVX's 9.97% 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 LBFFX and CICVX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, LBFFX and CICVX 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, LBFFX or CICVX?

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

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.