AWF vs MFEM
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $973M | $156M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 2.39% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 701 | |
| YTD Return | -0.68% | +21.80% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.04% | +33.81% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.80% | +20.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.73% | +8.97% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 17.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Aug 31, 2017 |
AWF vs MFEM Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% while MFEM returned +33.81%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.68% versus a gain of 21.80% for MFEM.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.80% per year against +20.43% for MFEM; over five years the annualized figures are +3.73% and +8.97% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, MFEM has the edge at +6.84% 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 17.7% for MFEM. 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 -45.3% for MFEM. 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 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $49 annually, a gap of $51 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 2.39% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and MFEM share 0 holdings out of 1210 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 MFEM?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while MFEM charges 0.49%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $51 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or MFEM?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% vs +33.81% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +6.84% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or MFEM?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 17.7% for MFEM. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both AWF and MFEM?
AWF and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and MFEM?
AWF and MFEM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1210 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or MFEM?
AWF yields 6.98% while MFEM yields 2.39%, 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.