AWF vs SAWS
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
SAWS has a lower expense ratio. SAWS delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | SAWS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.55% | |
| AUM | $969M | $8M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 0.02% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 72 | |
| YTD Return | -0.83% | +15.23% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.37% | +22.18% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.50% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.66% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 18.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -22.0% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Advisors Asset Management, Inc. | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Jul 30, 2024 |
AWF vs SAWS Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) is a ETF from Advisors Asset Management, Inc.. Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% while SAWS returned +22.18%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.83% versus a gain of 15.23% for SAWS.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SAWS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% 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 -22.0% for SAWS. 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 0.52. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while SAWS charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $55 annually, a gap of $45 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 0.02% for SAWS.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and SAWS share 0 holdings out of 778 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 SAWS?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while SAWS charges 0.55%. SAWS is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $45 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or SAWS?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% vs +22.18% for SAWS, so SAWS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +13.04% for SAWS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or SAWS?
SAWS has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs SAWS -22.0%.
Should I hold both AWF and SAWS?
AWF and SAWS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and SAWS?
AWF and SAWS share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 778 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or SAWS?
AWF yields 6.92% while SAWS yields 0.02%, 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.