AWF vs SPGM
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
SPGM has a lower expense ratio. SPGM delivered stronger 1-year returns. SPGM offers more diversification with 2,985 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | SPGM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.09% | |
| AUM | $969M | $1.7B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.80% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 2,985 | |
| YTD Return | -0.83% | +15.55% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.37% | +25.40% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.49% | +21.36% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.60% | +11.64% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 13.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -34.0% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Feb 27, 2012 |
AWF vs SPGM Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (SPGM) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% while SPGM returned +25.40%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.83% versus a gain of 15.55% for SPGM.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.49% per year against +21.36% for SPGM; over five years the annualized figures are +3.60% and +11.64% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SPGM has the edge at +9.96% annualized vs +0.92%. 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 13.7% for SPGM. 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 -34.0% for SPGM. 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 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while SPGM charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $9 annually, a gap of $91 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.92% against 1.80% for SPGM.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and SPGM share 0 holdings out of 3553 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 SPGM?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while SPGM charges 0.09%. SPGM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $91 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or SPGM?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.37% vs +25.40% for SPGM, so SPGM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +9.96% for SPGM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or SPGM?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 13.7% for SPGM. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs SPGM -34.0%.
Should I hold both AWF and SPGM?
AWF and SPGM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and SPGM?
AWF and SPGM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3553 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or SPGM?
AWF yields 6.92% while SPGM yields 1.80%, 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.