AWF vs SCHQ
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF
Quick Verdict
SCHQ has a lower expense ratio. SCHQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 707 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | SCHQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $969M | $806M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 4.73% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 98 | |
| YTD Return | -1.03% | -3.15% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.56% | -0.88% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.42% | +0.10% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | -6.79% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 13.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -46.7% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Charles Schwab Asset Management | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Oct 10, 2019 |
AWF vs SCHQ Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF (SCHQ) is a ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% while SCHQ returned -0.88%. Year to date, AWF is down 1.03% versus a loss of 3.15% for SCHQ.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.42% per year against +0.10% for SCHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.62% and -6.79% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, AWF has the edge at +0.91% annualized vs -4.49%. 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 13.5% for SCHQ. 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 -46.7% for SCHQ. 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 SCHQ charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $3 annually, a gap of $97 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 4.73% for SCHQ.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AWF or SCHQ?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while SCHQ charges 0.03%. SCHQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $97 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or SCHQ?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.56% vs -0.88% for SCHQ, so SCHQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AWF annualized +0.91% vs -4.49% for SCHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or SCHQ?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 13.5% for SCHQ. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs SCHQ -46.7%.
Should I hold both AWF and SCHQ?
AWF and SCHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.27, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or SCHQ?
AWF yields 6.92% while SCHQ yields 4.73%, 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.