AWF vs PATN
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF
Quick Verdict
PATN has a lower expense ratio. PATN delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | PATN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.65% | |
| AUM | $973M | $234M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 1.67% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | -0.68% | +30.11% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.04% | +51.30% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.80% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.73% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 21.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -16.8% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Pacer ETFs | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Sep 16, 2024 |
AWF vs PATN Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% while PATN returned +51.30%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.68% versus a gain of 30.11% for PATN.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PATN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.1% compared with 18.2% for AWF. 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 -16.8% for PATN. 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 0.41. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while PATN charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $65 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 1.67% for PATN.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and PATN share 1 holdings out of 807 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in AWF | Weight in PATN | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSANY 4.345 09/17/27 | 0.02% | 0.12% | 0.10% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AWF or PATN?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while PATN charges 0.65%. PATN is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $35 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or PATN?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% vs +51.30% for PATN, so PATN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +37.49% for PATN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or PATN?
PATN has been the more volatile fund at 21.1% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs PATN -16.8%.
Should I hold both AWF and PATN?
AWF and PATN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.41, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and PATN?
AWF and PATN share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 807 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or PATN?
AWF yields 6.98% while PATN yields 1.67%, 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.