AWF vs FQAL
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Fidelity Quality Factor ETF
Quick Verdict
FQAL has a lower expense ratio. FQAL delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FQAL | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.15% | |
| AUM | $973M | $1.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 1.15% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 130 | |
| YTD Return | +0.01% | +13.19% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.68% | +18.42% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.97% | +20.31% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.92% | +11.64% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -34.1% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Fidelity Investments (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Sep 12, 2016 |
AWF vs FQAL Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.68% while FQAL returned +18.42%. Year to date, AWF is up 0.01% versus a gain of 13.19% for FQAL.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.97% per year against +20.31% for FQAL; over five years the annualized figures are +3.92% and +11.64% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FQAL has the edge at +13.80% annualized vs +0.95%. 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 15.0% for FQAL. 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 -34.1% for FQAL. 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 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FQAL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $15 annually, a gap of $85 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 1.15% for FQAL.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FQAL share 0 holdings out of 832 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 FQAL?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FQAL charges 0.15%. FQAL is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $85 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FQAL?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.68% vs +18.42% for FQAL, so FQAL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), AWF annualized +0.95% vs +13.80% for FQAL. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FQAL?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.0% for FQAL. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FQAL -34.1%.
Should I hold both AWF and FQAL?
AWF and FQAL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FQAL?
AWF and FQAL share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 832 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FQAL?
AWF yields 6.98% while FQAL yields 1.15%, 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.