AWF vs ELCV
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Eventide High Dividend ETF
Quick Verdict
ELCV has a lower expense ratio. ELCV delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | ELCV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $969M | $251M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 2.06% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 47 | |
| YTD Return | -0.83% | +21.13% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.37% | +26.06% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.49% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.60% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 13.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -18.4% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Eventide | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Sep 30, 2024 |
AWF vs ELCV Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Eventide High Dividend ETF (ELCV) is a ETF from Eventide. Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% while ELCV returned +26.06%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.83% versus a gain of 21.13% for ELCV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 13.9% for ELCV. 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 -18.4% for ELCV. 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 0.57. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while ELCV charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $49 annually, a gap of $51 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 2.06% for ELCV.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and ELCV share 0 holdings out of 753 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 ELCV?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while ELCV charges 0.49%. ELCV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $51 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or ELCV?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% vs +26.06% for ELCV, so ELCV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +16.37% for ELCV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or ELCV?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 13.9% for ELCV. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs ELCV -18.4%.
Should I hold both AWF and ELCV?
AWF and ELCV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and ELCV?
AWF and ELCV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 753 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or ELCV?
AWF yields 6.92% while ELCV yields 2.06%, 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.