CHW vs IVV
Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. CHW delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CHW | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.27% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $861M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.92% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 775 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +20.22% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +29.67% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.81% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.53% | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 23.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -73.0% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Calamos Investments | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
CHW vs IVV Performance
Calamos Global Dynamic Income Fund (CHW) 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 CHW returned +29.67% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, CHW is up 20.22% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, CHW compounded at +22.81% per year against +21.47% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.53% and +13.26% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.03% annualized vs -0.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CHW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.1% 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 -73.0% for CHW 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CHW charges 2.27% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $227 vs $3 annually, a gap of $224 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CHW currently yields 5.92% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CHW and IVV share 65 holdings out of 939 unique holdings combined, representing a 18.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CHW or IVV?
CHW has an expense ratio of 2.27% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $224 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CHW or IVV?
Over the past year CHW returned +29.67% vs +22.61% for IVV, so CHW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CHW annualized -0.26% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CHW or IVV?
CHW has been the more volatile fund at 23.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CHW -73.0% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CHW and IVV?
CHW and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CHW and IVV?
CHW and IVV share 65 common holdings with a 18.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 939 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CHW or IVV?
CHW yields 5.92% while IVV yields 1.09%, so CHW 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.