AWF vs IGBH
AWF vs IGBH
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IGBH has a lower expense ratio. IGBH delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | IGBH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.14% | |
| AUM | $969M | $203M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 5.68% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 4,130 | |
| YTD Return | -1.51% | +1.43% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.78% | +5.80% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.35% | +7.55% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.44% | +5.34% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 7.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -38.9% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Jul 22, 2015 |
AWF vs IGBH Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGBH) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% while IGBH returned +5.80%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.51% versus a gain of 1.43% for IGBH.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.35% per year against +7.55% for IGBH; over five years the annualized figures are +3.44% and +5.34% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IGBH has the edge at +2.85% annualized vs +0.90%. 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 7.5% for IGBH. 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 -38.9% for IGBH. 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 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while IGBH charges 0.14%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $14 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 5.68% for IGBH.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and IGBH share 0 holdings out of 783 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 IGBH?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while IGBH charges 0.14%. IGBH is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $86 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or IGBH?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% vs +5.80% for IGBH, so IGBH leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), AWF annualized +0.90% vs +2.85% for IGBH. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or IGBH?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 7.5% for IGBH. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs IGBH -38.9%.
Should I hold both AWF and IGBH?
AWF and IGBH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and IGBH?
AWF and IGBH share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 783 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or IGBH?
AWF yields 6.92% while IGBH yields 5.68%, 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.