ACES vs AWF
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. ACES delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | AWF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 1.00% | |
| AUM | $109M | $969M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 6.92% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 1,273 | |
| YTD Return | -5.34% | -1.71% | |
| 1Y Return | +18.63% | -3.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -8.28% | +8.24% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -14.26% | +3.53% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.3% | 18.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -60.0% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | AllianceBernstein L.P. | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Jul 28, 1993 |
ACES vs AWF Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% while AWF returned -3.23%. Year to date, ACES is down 5.34% versus a loss of 1.71% for AWF.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -8.28% per year against +8.24% for AWF; over five years the annualized figures are -14.26% and +3.53% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, ACES has the edge at +3.60% annualized vs +0.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.3% compared with 18.2% for AWF. 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 -79.0% for ACES and -60.0% for AWF. 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 0.59. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while AWF charges 1.00%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $100 annually, a gap of $45 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 6.92% for AWF.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and AWF share 0 holdings out of 744 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or AWF?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while AWF charges 1.00%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $45 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or AWF?
Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% vs -3.23% for AWF, so ACES leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.60% vs +0.89% for AWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or AWF?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.3% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs AWF -60.0%.
Should I hold both ACES and AWF?
ACES and AWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and AWF?
ACES and AWF share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 744 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or AWF?
ACES yields 1.22% while AWF yields 6.92%, so AWF 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.