AWF vs SBIO
AWF vs SBIO
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
SBIO has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $969M | $202M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 4.05% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 87 | |
| YTD Return | -1.51% | +34.80% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.78% | +106.24% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.35% | +32.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.44% | +9.56% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Dec 30, 2014 |
AWF vs SBIO Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% while SBIO returned +106.24%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.51% versus a gain of 34.80% for SBIO.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.35% per year against +32.77% for SBIO; over five years the annualized figures are +3.44% and +9.56% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, SBIO has the edge at +9.80% annualized vs +0.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% 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 -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.36. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $50 annually, a gap of $50 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 4.05% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 812 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 SBIO?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while SBIO charges 0.50%. SBIO is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $50 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or SBIO?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.78% vs +106.24% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), AWF annualized +0.90% vs +9.80% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 18.2% for AWF. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both AWF and SBIO?
AWF and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.36, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and SBIO?
AWF and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 812 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or SBIO?
AWF yields 6.92% while SBIO yields 4.05%, 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.