AWF vs CGW
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. CGW delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | CGW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.58% | |
| AUM | $973M | $1.1B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 1.54% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 82 | |
| YTD Return | +0.01% | +2.72% | |
| 1Y Return | -1.81% | +3.00% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.91% | +11.48% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.89% | +3.87% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 17.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -57.2% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | May 14, 2007 |
AWF vs CGW Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year AWF returned -1.81% while CGW returned +3.00%. Year to date, AWF is up 0.01% versus a gain of 2.72% for CGW.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.91% per year against +11.48% for CGW; over five years the annualized figures are +3.89% and +3.87% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.21% annualized vs +0.95%. 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 17.3% for CGW. 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 -57.2% for CGW. 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 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while CGW charges 0.58%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $58 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 1.54% for CGW.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and CGW share 0 holdings out of 774 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 CGW?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while CGW charges 0.58%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $42 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or CGW?
Over the past year AWF returned -1.81% vs +3.00% for CGW, so CGW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), AWF annualized +0.95% vs +7.21% for CGW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or CGW?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs CGW -57.2%.
Should I hold both AWF and CGW?
AWF and CGW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and CGW?
AWF and CGW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 774 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or CGW?
AWF yields 6.98% while CGW yields 1.54%, 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.