AWF vs NMI
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc.
Quick Verdict
NMI has a lower expense ratio. NMI delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | NMI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.73% | |
| AUM | $969M | - | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 4.57% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 220 | |
| YTD Return | -1.03% | +11.00% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.56% | +14.29% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.42% | +9.76% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | +2.10% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 11.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -34.4% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Nuveen | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Apr 20, 1988 |
AWF vs NMI Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc. (NMI) is a ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% while NMI returned +14.29%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.03% versus a gain of 11.00% for NMI.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.42% per year against +9.76% for NMI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.62% and +2.10% respectively. Across the full 31-year window we track, AWF has the edge at +0.91% annualized vs +0.37%. 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 11.0% for NMI. 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 -34.4% for NMI. 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 0.27. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while NMI charges 0.73%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $73 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 4.57% for NMI.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and NMI share 0 holdings out of 802 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 NMI?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while NMI charges 0.73%. NMI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $27 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or NMI?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% vs +14.29% for NMI, so NMI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (31 years), AWF annualized +0.91% vs +0.37% for NMI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or NMI?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 11.0% for NMI. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs NMI -34.4%.
Should I hold both AWF and NMI?
AWF and NMI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.27, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and NMI?
AWF and NMI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 802 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or NMI?
AWF yields 6.92% while NMI yields 4.57%, 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.