AWF vs FMN
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund
Quick Verdict
FMN has a lower expense ratio. FMN delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FMN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.75% | |
| AUM | $973M | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 4.43% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 150 | |
| YTD Return | -0.68% | +1.66% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.04% | +8.44% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.80% | +7.15% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.73% | -3.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 14.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -53.4% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Federated Hermes | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Dec 20, 2002 |
AWF vs FMN Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund (FMN) is a ETF from Federated Hermes. Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% while FMN returned +8.44%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.68% versus a gain of 1.66% for FMN.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.80% per year against +7.15% for FMN; over five years the annualized figures are +3.73% and -3.05% respectively. Across the full 24-year window we track, AWF has the edge at +0.92% annualized vs -0.28%. 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 14.7% for FMN. 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 -53.4% for FMN. 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 0.58. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FMN charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $75 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 4.43% for FMN.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FMN share 0 holdings out of 792 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 FMN?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FMN charges 0.75%. FMN is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $25 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FMN?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% vs +8.44% for FMN, so FMN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (24 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs -0.28% for FMN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FMN?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.7% for FMN. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FMN -53.4%.
Should I hold both AWF and FMN?
AWF and FMN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FMN?
AWF and FMN share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 792 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FMN?
AWF yields 6.98% while FMN yields 4.43%, 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.