ACES vs ETW
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 259 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | ETW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 1.10% | |
| AUM | $109M | $936M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 7.41% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 291 | |
| YTD Return | -5.34% | +11.26% | |
| 1Y Return | +18.63% | +19.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -8.28% | +16.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -14.26% | +6.15% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.3% | 16.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -72.8% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | Eaton Vance | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Sep 30, 2005 |
ACES vs ETW Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance. Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% while ETW returned +19.31%. Year to date, ACES is down 5.34% versus a gain of 11.26% for ETW.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -8.28% per year against +16.49% for ETW; over five years the annualized figures are -14.26% and +6.15% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, ACES has the edge at +3.60% annualized vs -1.12%. 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 16.9% for ETW. 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 -72.8% for ETW. 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 0.53. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while ETW charges 1.10%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $110 annually, a gap of $55 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 7.41% for ETW.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and ETW share 1 holdings out of 295 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ACES | Weight in ETW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSLA | 4.96% | 1.50% | 3.46% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or ETW?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while ETW charges 1.10%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $55 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or ETW?
Over the past year ACES returned +18.63% vs +19.31% for ETW, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.60% vs -1.12% for ETW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or ETW?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.3% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs ETW -72.8%.
Should I hold both ACES and ETW?
ACES and ETW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.53, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and ETW?
ACES and ETW share 1 common holdings with a 1.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 295 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or ETW?
ACES yields 1.22% while ETW yields 7.41%, so ETW 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.