AWF vs FAAR
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF
Quick Verdict
FAAR has a lower expense ratio. FAAR delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FAAR | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $969M | $191M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 9.19% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 6 | |
| YTD Return | -0.83% | +15.76% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.37% | +20.43% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.50% | +9.16% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.66% | +7.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 9.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -18.8% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Commodity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | May 18, 2016 |
AWF vs FAAR Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% while FAAR returned +20.43%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.83% versus a gain of 15.76% for FAAR.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.50% per year against +9.16% for FAAR; over five years the annualized figures are +3.66% and +7.39% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FAAR has the edge at +3.48% annualized vs +0.92%. 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 9.1% for FAAR. 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 -18.8% for FAAR. 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 0.06. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FAAR charges 0.97%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $97 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 9.19% for FAAR.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FAAR share 0 holdings out of 708 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 FAAR?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FAAR charges 0.97%. FAAR is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $3 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FAAR?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% vs +20.43% for FAAR, so FAAR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +3.48% for FAAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FAAR?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 9.1% for FAAR. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FAAR -18.8%.
Should I hold both AWF and FAAR?
AWF and FAAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.06, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FAAR?
AWF and FAAR share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 708 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FAAR?
AWF yields 6.92% while FAAR yields 9.19%, so FAAR 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.