MWOFX vs. CSUAX
Compare and contrast key facts about MFS Global Growth Fund (MWOFX) and Cohen & Steers Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (CSUAX).
MWOFX is managed by MFS. It was launched on Nov 17, 1993. CSUAX is a passively managed fund by Cohen & Steers that tracks the performance of the FTSE Global Core Infrastructure 50/50 Index. It was launched on Aug 28, 2017.
Performance
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MWOFX MFS Global Growth Fund | -11.70% | 7.17% | 10.68% | 20.63% | -19.28% | 18.33% | 20.23% | 35.37% | -4.94% | 31.13% |
CSUAX Cohen & Steers Global Infrastructure Fund Class A | 8.35% | 14.30% | 8.30% | 2.09% | -5.20% | 16.24% | -1.65% | 24.26% | -5.83% | 17.99% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MWOFX achieves a -11.70% return, which is significantly lower than CSUAX's 8.35% return. Over the past 10 years, MWOFX has outperformed CSUAX with an annualized return of 9.51%, while CSUAX has yielded a comparatively lower 7.48% annualized return.
MWOFX
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- -10.16%
- YTD
- -11.70%
- 6M
- -10.64%
- 1Y
- -1.93%
- 3Y*
- 5.19%
- 5Y*
- 3.15%
- 10Y*
- 9.51%
CSUAX
- 1D
- 0.34%
- 1M
- -4.38%
- YTD
- 8.35%
- 6M
- 8.97%
- 1Y
- 17.98%
- 3Y*
- 10.78%
- 5Y*
- 7.79%
- 10Y*
- 7.48%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both MWOFX and CSUAX have an expense ratio of 1.22%.
Return for Risk
MWOFX vs. CSUAX — Risk / Return Rank
MWOFX
CSUAX
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Global Growth Fund (MWOFX) and Cohen & Steers Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (CSUAX). 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.
| MWOFX | CSUAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.11 | 1.63 | -1.74 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.05 | 2.17 | -2.22 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.32 | -0.33 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.24 | 2.36 | -2.60 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.88 | 10.32 | -11.20 |
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
| MWOFX | CSUAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.11 | 1.63 | -1.74 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.20 | 0.61 | -0.41 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 | 0.50 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 0.55 | -0.09 |
Correlation
The correlation between MWOFX and CSUAX is 0.71, 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
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Dividend Comparison
MWOFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.14%, less than CSUAX's 7.46% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MWOFX MFS Global Growth Fund | 6.14% | 5.42% | 5.14% | 2.09% | 3.60% | 6.25% | 3.13% | 1.86% | 5.00% | 3.43% | 1.68% | 6.08% |
CSUAX Cohen & Steers Global Infrastructure Fund Class A | 7.46% | 8.09% | 2.23% | 2.17% | 3.55% | 2.95% | 1.30% | 1.52% | 2.08% | 5.00% | 2.04% | 6.20% |
Drawdowns
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MWOFX drawdown since its inception was -56.10%, which is greater than CSUAX's maximum drawdown of -52.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MWOFX and CSUAX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| MWOFX | CSUAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.10% | -52.20% | -3.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.82% | -7.98% | -5.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.64% | -20.45% | -7.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -31.68% | -35.05% | +3.37% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.82% | -4.38% | -9.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.94% | -8.49% | -3.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.71% | 1.83% | +1.88% |
Volatility
MWOFX vs. CSUAX - Volatility Comparison
MFS Global Growth Fund (MWOFX) has a higher volatility of 4.28% compared to Cohen & Steers Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (CSUAX) at 3.26%. This indicates that MWOFX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSUAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| MWOFX | CSUAX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.28% | 3.26% | +1.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.73% | 6.89% | +1.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.82% | 11.48% | +4.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.69% | 12.89% | +2.80% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.56% | 14.89% | +1.67% |