AWF vs ETW
AWF vs ETW
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund
Quick Verdict
AWF has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | ETW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 1.10% | |
| AUM | $969M | $936M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 7.41% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 291 | |
| YTD Return | -1.51% | +10.92% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.78% | +20.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.35% | +15.89% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.44% | +6.21% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 16.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -72.8% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Eaton Vance | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Alternative | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Sep 30, 2005 |
AWF vs ETW Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance. Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% while ETW returned +20.02%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.51% versus a gain of 10.92% for ETW.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.35% per year against +15.89% for ETW; over five years the annualized figures are +3.44% and +6.21% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, AWF has the edge at +0.90% annualized vs -1.13%. 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 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 -60.0% for AWF 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 0.70. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while ETW charges 1.10%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $110 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 7.41% for ETW.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and ETW share 0 holdings out of 966 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 ETW?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while ETW charges 1.10%. AWF is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $10 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or ETW?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% vs +20.02% for ETW, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), AWF annualized +0.90% vs -1.13% for ETW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or ETW?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs ETW -72.8%.
Should I hold both AWF and ETW?
AWF and ETW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.70, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and ETW?
AWF and ETW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 966 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or ETW?
AWF yields 6.92% 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.