AWF vs BBEM
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
BBEM has a lower expense ratio. BBEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. BBEM offers more diversification with 889 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | BBEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.15% | |
| AUM | $969M | $748M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 2.52% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 1,132 | |
| YTD Return | -1.51% | +15.82% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.78% | +32.69% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.35% | +19.42% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.44% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -17.4% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | May 10, 2023 |
AWF vs BBEM Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) is a ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% while BBEM returned +32.69%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.51% versus a gain of 15.82% for BBEM.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.35% per year against +19.42% for BBEM. Across the full 3-year window we track, BBEM has the edge at +19.55% annualized vs +0.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 15.1% for BBEM. 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 -60.0% for AWF and -17.4% for BBEM. 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 0.36. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while BBEM charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $15 annually, a gap of $85 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 2.52% for BBEM.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and BBEM share 0 holdings out of 1596 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, AWF or BBEM?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while BBEM charges 0.15%. BBEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $85 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or BBEM?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% vs +32.69% for BBEM, so BBEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), AWF annualized +0.90% vs +19.55% for BBEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or BBEM?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.1% for BBEM. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs BBEM -17.4%.
Should I hold both AWF and BBEM?
AWF and BBEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.36, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and BBEM?
AWF and BBEM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1596 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or BBEM?
AWF yields 6.92% while BBEM yields 2.52%, 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.