AWF vs PHDG
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF
Quick Verdict
PHDG has a lower expense ratio. PHDG delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | PHDG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.39% | |
| AUM | $969M | $61M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.68% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 514 | |
| YTD Return | -1.71% | +12.90% | |
| 1Y Return | -3.23% | +17.89% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.24% | +9.78% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.53% | +4.72% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 9.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -23.6% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Dec 5, 2012 |
AWF vs PHDG Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year AWF returned -3.23% while PHDG returned +17.89%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.71% versus a gain of 12.90% for PHDG.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.24% per year against +9.78% for PHDG; over five years the annualized figures are +3.53% and +4.72% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, PHDG has the edge at +4.44% annualized vs +0.89%. 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 9.9% for PHDG. 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 -23.6% for PHDG. 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 0.34. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while PHDG charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $39 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 1.68% for PHDG.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and PHDG share 0 holdings out of 1201 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 PHDG?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while PHDG charges 0.39%. PHDG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $61 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or PHDG?
Over the past year AWF returned -3.23% vs +17.89% for PHDG, so PHDG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), AWF annualized +0.89% vs +4.44% for PHDG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or PHDG?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 9.9% for PHDG. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs PHDG -23.6%.
Should I hold both AWF and PHDG?
AWF and PHDG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.34, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and PHDG?
AWF and PHDG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1201 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or PHDG?
AWF yields 6.92% while PHDG yields 1.68%, 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.