AWF vs FFLV
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF
Quick Verdict
FFLV has a lower expense ratio. FFLV delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FFLV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.38% | |
| AUM | $969M | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.41% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 119 | |
| YTD Return | -1.03% | +18.17% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.56% | +30.12% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.42% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 12.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -16.7% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Fidelity Investments (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Feb 9, 2024 |
AWF vs FFLV Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% while FFLV returned +30.12%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.03% versus a gain of 18.17% for FFLV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 12.3% for FFLV. 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 -16.7% for FFLV. 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 0.56. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FFLV charges 0.38%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $38 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 1.41% for FFLV.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FFLV share 0 holdings out of 812 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 FFLV?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FFLV charges 0.38%. FFLV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $62 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FFLV?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% vs +30.12% for FFLV, so FFLV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), AWF annualized +0.91% vs +17.59% for FFLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FFLV?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 12.3% for FFLV. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FFLV -16.7%.
Should I hold both AWF and FFLV?
AWF and FFLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FFLV?
AWF and FFLV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 812 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FFLV?
AWF yields 6.92% while FFLV yields 1.41%, 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.