CGO vs QQQ
Calamos Global Total Return Fund vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGO offers more diversification with 714 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGO | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.30% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $210M | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.70% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 714 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +20.84% | +19.68% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.15% | +26.75% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.16% | +26.25% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.77% | +15.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.9% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -67.0% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 27, 2005 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CGO vs QQQ Performance
Calamos Global Total Return Fund (CGO) is a ETF from Calamos Investments and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CGO returned +22.15% while QQQ returned +26.75%. Year to date, CGO is up 20.84% versus a gain of 19.68% for QQQ.
Over three years, CGO compounded at +22.16% per year against +26.25% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +4.77% and +15.39% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.15% annualized vs +1.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 20.9% for CGO. 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 -83.0% for QQQ. 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 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGO charges 2.30% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $230 vs $18 annually, a gap of $212 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGO currently yields 5.70% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CGO and QQQ share 16 holdings out of 579 unique holdings combined, representing a 12.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGO or QQQ?
CGO has an expense ratio of 2.30% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $212 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGO or QQQ?
Over the past year CGO returned +22.15% vs +26.75% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), CGO annualized +1.81% vs +13.15% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGO or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 20.9% for CGO. Worst drawdown: CGO -67.0% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CGO and QQQ?
CGO and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGO and QQQ?
CGO and QQQ share 16 common holdings with a 12.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 579 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGO or QQQ?
CGO yields 5.70% while QQQ yields 0.44%, 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.