CGO vs IVV
Calamos Global Total Return Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.30% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $203M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.69% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 714 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +19.30% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.35% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.69% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.51% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.9% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -67.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 27, 2005 | May 15, 2000 |
CGO vs IVV Performance
Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) is a ETF from Calamos Investments and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGO returned +22.35% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, CGO is up 19.30% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, CGO compounded at +21.69% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.51% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs +1.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.9% compared with 15.1% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -67.0% for CGO and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGO charges 2.30% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $230 vs $3 annually, a gap of $227 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGO currently yields 5.69% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CGO and IVV share 65 holdings out of 933 unique holdings combined, representing a 18.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGO or IVV?
CGO has an expense ratio of 2.30% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $227 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGO or IVV?
Over the past year CGO returned +22.35% vs +22.61% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), CGO annualized +1.74% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGO or IVV?
CGO has been the more volatile fund at 20.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CGO -67.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CGO and IVV?
CGO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGO and IVV?
CGO and IVV share 65 common holdings with a 18.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 933 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGO or IVV?
CGO yields 5.69% while IVV yields 1.09%, so CGO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.