AOD vs AWF
Abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund vs AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund
Quick Verdict
AWF has a lower expense ratio. AOD delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AOD | AWF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.16% | 1.00% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $969M | |
| Dividend Yield | 11.72% | 6.92% | |
| Holdings | 86 | 1,273 | |
| YTD Return | +19.25% | -1.71% | |
| 1Y Return | +34.02% | -3.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.41% | +8.24% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.45% | +3.53% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.9% | 18.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -88.1% | -60.0% | |
| Fund Family | Aberdeen | AllianceBernstein L.P. | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Jan 26, 2007 | Jul 28, 1993 |
AOD vs AWF Performance
Abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund (AOD) is a ETF from Aberdeen and AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Over the past year AOD returned +34.02% while AWF returned -3.23%. Year to date, AOD is up 19.25% versus a loss of 1.71% for AWF.
Over three years, AOD compounded at +23.41% per year against +8.24% for AWF; over five years the annualized figures are +11.45% and +3.53% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, AWF has the edge at +0.89% annualized vs -4.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AOD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.9% 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 -88.1% for AOD 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AOD charges 1.16% per year while AWF charges 1.00%. On a $10,000 position that is $116 vs $100 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AOD currently yields 11.72% against 6.92% for AWF.
Holdings Overlap
AOD and AWF share 0 holdings out of 792 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, AOD or AWF?
AOD has an expense ratio of 1.16% while AWF charges 1.00%. AWF is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $16 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AOD or AWF?
Over the past year AOD returned +34.02% vs -3.23% for AWF, so AOD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), AOD annualized -4.00% vs +0.89% for AWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AOD or AWF?
AOD has been the more volatile fund at 21.9% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: AOD -88.1% vs AWF -60.0%.
Should I hold both AOD and AWF?
AOD and AWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AOD and AWF?
AOD and AWF share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 792 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AOD or AWF?
AOD yields 11.72% while AWF yields 6.92%, so AOD 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.