AWF vs FTGS
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs First Trust Growth Strength ETF
Quick Verdict
FTGS has a lower expense ratio. FTGS delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | FTGS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $969M | $1.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 0.09% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 51 | |
| YTD Return | -1.03% | +13.02% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.56% | +14.71% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.42% | +18.46% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 14.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -20.0% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Oct 25, 2022 |
AWF vs FTGS Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% while FTGS returned +14.71%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.03% versus a gain of 13.02% for FTGS.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.42% per year against +18.46% for FTGS. Across the full 4-year window we track, FTGS has the edge at +19.91% annualized vs +0.91%. 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 14.6% for FTGS. 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 -20.0% for FTGS. 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 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while FTGS charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $60 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 0.09% for FTGS.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and FTGS share 0 holdings out of 757 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 FTGS?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while FTGS charges 0.60%. FTGS is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $40 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or FTGS?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% vs +14.71% for FTGS, so FTGS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), AWF annualized +0.91% vs +19.91% for FTGS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or FTGS?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.6% for FTGS. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs FTGS -20.0%.
Should I hold both AWF and FTGS?
AWF and FTGS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and FTGS?
AWF and FTGS share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 757 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or FTGS?
AWF yields 6.92% while FTGS yields 0.09%, 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.