MCIFX vs. CXGCX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MCIFX (Miller Convertible Bond Fund) and CXGCX (Calamos Global Convertible Fund) are both Convertible Bonds funds. Over the past 10 years, MCIFX returned 5.75%/yr vs 9.34%/yr for CXGCX. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCIFX charges 0.97%/yr vs 1.03%/yr for CXGCX.

Performance

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX) and Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCIFX achieves a 7.80% return, which is significantly lower than CXGCX's 16.48% return. Over the past 10 years, MCIFX has underperformed CXGCX with an annualized return of 5.75%, while CXGCX has yielded a comparatively higher 9.34% annualized return.

MCIFX

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 3.34%
• YTD: 7.80%
• 6M: 8.09%
• 1Y: 15.05%
• 3Y*: 8.33%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: 5.75%

CXGCX

• 1D: 1.45%
• 1M: 5.67%
• YTD: 16.48%
• 6M: 17.51%
• 1Y: 29.94%
• 3Y*: 17.94%
• 5Y*: 5.88%
• 10Y*: 9.34%

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

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MCIFX Miller Convertible Bond Fund	7.80%	6.35%	5.75%	6.06%	-10.55%	4.40%	19.61%	13.28%	-5.64%	7.30%
CXGCX Calamos Global Convertible Fund	16.48%	18.49%	10.98%	13.48%	-22.06%	-0.31%	38.60%	15.18%	-2.76%	14.25%

Correlation

The correlation between MCIFX and CXGCX is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2015	0.77

The correlation between MCIFX and CXGCX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MCIFX vs. CXGCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCIFX

MCIFX Risk / Return Rank: 81
MCIFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
MCIFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCIFX Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MCIFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
MCIFX Martin Ratio Rank: 72

CXGCX

CXGCX Risk / Return Rank: 89
CXGCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CXGCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
CXGCX Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CXGCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CXGCX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX) and Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX). 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.

	MCIFX	CXGCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.91	3.04	-0.13
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.46	4.28	+0.18
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.55	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.30	5.26	-1.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.68	17.94	-4.26
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCIFX Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is comparable to the CXGCX Sharpe Ratio of 3.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCIFX and CXGCX, 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

	MCIFX	CXGCX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.91	3.04	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54	0.61	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	0.98	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.88	-0.11

Drawdowns

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCIFX drawdown since its inception was -29.19%, smaller than the maximum CXGCX drawdown of -30.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCIFX and CXGCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCIFX	CXGCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.19%	-30.74%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.53%	-5.75%	+1.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.35%	-8.92%	+2.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.75%	-28.88%	+14.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-17.36%	-30.74%	+13.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.88%	-7.26%	+3.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.09%	1.69%	-0.60%

Volatility

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Miller Convertible Bond Fund (MCIFX) is 2.04%, while Calamos Global Convertible Fund (CXGCX) has a volatility of 3.45%. This indicates that MCIFX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CXGCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCIFX	CXGCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.04%	3.45%	-1.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.95%	7.92%	-3.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.18%	10.12%	-4.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.13%	9.66%	-3.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.98%	9.55%	-2.57%

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCIFX has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is lower than CXGCX's 1.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCIFX vs. CXGCX - Dividend Comparison

MCIFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.51%, which matches CXGCX's 4.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CXGCX Calamos Global Convertible Fund	4.48%	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	4.51%	4.10%	4.12%	3.55%	3.99%	7.69%	3.43%	2.96%	5.31%	5.59%	2.45%	2.46%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCIFX and CXGCX in my portfolio?

MCIFX and CXGCX have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCIFX or CXGCX?

CXGCX has higher volatility (3.45%) compared to MCIFX (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCIFX dropped -29.19% vs CXGCX's -30.74%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CXGCX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.04 vs 2.91), 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.