AWF vs FNGG
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF
Quick Verdict
FNGG has a lower expense ratio. FNGG delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FNGG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $973M | $143M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 10.70% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 18 | |
| YTD Return | -0.68% | +29.44% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.04% | +35.54% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.80% | +60.38% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.73% | +3.76% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 58.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -91.3% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Direxion Shares ETF Trust | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Alternative | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Sep 29, 2021 |
AWF vs FNGG Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF (FNGG) is a ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% while FNGG returned +35.54%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.68% versus a gain of 29.44% for FNGG.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.80% per year against +60.38% for FNGG; over five years the annualized figures are +3.73% and +3.76% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, FNGG has the edge at +3.76% annualized vs +0.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNGG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 58.4% compared with 18.2% for AWF. 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 -91.3% for FNGG. 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 0.52. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FNGG 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 6.98% against 10.70% for FNGG.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FNGG share 0 holdings out of 720 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 FNGG?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FNGG charges 0.97%. FNGG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $3 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FNGG?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% vs +35.54% for FNGG, so FNGG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +3.76% for FNGG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FNGG?
FNGG has been the more volatile fund at 58.4% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FNGG -91.3%.
Should I hold both AWF and FNGG?
AWF and FNGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FNGG?
AWF and FNGG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 720 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FNGG?
AWF yields 6.98% while FNGG yields 10.70%, so FNGG 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.