AWF vs HUSV
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF
Quick Verdict
HUSV has a lower expense ratio. HUSV delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | HUSV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.70% | |
| AUM | $969M | $74M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.37% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 101 | |
| YTD Return | -0.83% | +7.80% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.37% | +4.95% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.50% | +9.61% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.66% | +5.94% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 13.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -35.7% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Aug 24, 2016 |
AWF vs HUSV Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF (HUSV) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% while HUSV returned +4.95%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.83% versus a gain of 7.80% for HUSV.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.50% per year against +9.61% for HUSV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.66% and +5.94% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, HUSV has the edge at +8.43% annualized vs +0.92%. 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 13.2% for HUSV. 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 -35.7% for HUSV. 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while HUSV charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $70 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 1.37% for HUSV.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and HUSV share 0 holdings out of 808 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 HUSV?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while HUSV charges 0.70%. HUSV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $30 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or HUSV?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% vs +4.95% for HUSV, so HUSV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +8.43% for HUSV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or HUSV?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 13.2% for HUSV. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs HUSV -35.7%.
Should I hold both AWF and HUSV?
AWF and HUSV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and HUSV?
AWF and HUSV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 808 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or HUSV?
AWF yields 6.92% while HUSV yields 1.37%, 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.