CGO vs IVV
Calamos Global Total Return Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, CGO or IVV?
Allocation/Balanced against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. CGO led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGO | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.30% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $205M | $882.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.80% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 714 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +15.90%Best | +12.76% |
| 1Y Return | +12.93% | +15.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.39%Best | +22.95% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.19% | +13.54%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -67.0% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,278 | $18,869Best |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity |
| Style | Allocation/Balanced | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 27, 2005 | May 15, 2000 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 27, 2005 to Oct 1, 2026 (20.9 years).
CGO vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 20.9 years both funds cover.
CGO vs IVV Performance
Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) is an ETF from Calamos Investments and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGO returned +12.93% while IVV returned +15.57%. Year to date, CGO is up 15.90% versus a gain of 12.76% for IVV.
Over three years, CGO compounded at +23.39% per year against +22.95% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.19% and +13.54% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.77% annualized vs +1.59%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.8% compared with 15.0% 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 what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
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 2.80% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
At least 39.7% of IVV's money is in holdings CGO also owns.
Stated as a floor: for CGO, our book for it covers 88.7% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 223 days apart, CGO as of Jan 31, 2026 and IVV as of Sep 11, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
64 positions in common, counted across the 493 positions we hold weights for in CGO and 505 in IVV, against full books of 714 and 508.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGO | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 3.27% | 8.00% | 4.73% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 0.94% | 5.57% | 4.63% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.64% | 3.00% | 0.36% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.16% | 3.80% | 2.64% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.73% | 2.59% | 1.86% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 0.50% | 2.15% | 1.65% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.00% | 1.56% | 0.56% |
| BABoeing Co | 2.21% | 0.25% | 1.96% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 0.79% | 1.34% | 0.55% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 0.57% | 1.44% | 0.87% |
39.7% of IVV is already inside CGO.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
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, by $227 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGO or IVV?
Over the past year CGO returned +12.93% vs +15.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), CGO annualized +1.59% vs +9.77% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGO or IVV?
CGO has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.0% 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 their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGO and IVV?
At least 39.7% of IVV's money is in holdings CGO also owns. Our book for CGO is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 64 positions in common, counted across the 493 positions we hold weights for in CGO and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGO or IVV?
CGO yields 2.80% while IVV yields 1.06%, so CGO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than CGO?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. CGO led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.