AWF vs TYLG
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund vs Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
TYLG has a lower expense ratio. TYLG delivered stronger 1-year returns. AWF offers more diversification with 1,273 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AWF | TYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $973M | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.98% | 8.89% | |
| Holdings | 1,273 | 78 | |
| YTD Return | -0.68% | +21.18% | |
| 1Y Return | -2.04% | +35.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.80% | +23.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.73% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -60.0% | -24.5% | |
| Fund Family | AllianceBernstein L.P. | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Alternative | |
| Inception | Jul 28, 1993 | Nov 21, 2022 |
AWF vs TYLG Performance
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund (AWF) is a ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P. and Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% while TYLG returned +35.64%. Year to date, AWF is down 0.68% versus a gain of 21.18% for TYLG.
Over three years, AWF compounded at +8.80% per year against +23.66% for TYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, TYLG has the edge at +25.12% 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 15.8% for TYLG. 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 -24.5% for TYLG. 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 0.43. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AWF charges 1.00% per year while TYLG charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $60 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AWF currently yields 6.98% against 8.89% for TYLG.
Holdings Overlap
AWF and TYLG share 0 holdings out of 781 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 TYLG?
AWF has an expense ratio of 1.00% while TYLG charges 0.60%. TYLG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $40 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AWF or TYLG?
Over the past year AWF returned -2.04% vs +35.64% for TYLG, so TYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), AWF annualized +0.92% vs +25.12% for TYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AWF or TYLG?
AWF has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.8% for TYLG. Worst drawdown: AWF -60.0% vs TYLG -24.5%.
Should I hold both AWF and TYLG?
AWF and TYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AWF and TYLG?
AWF and TYLG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 781 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AWF or TYLG?
AWF yields 6.98% while TYLG yields 8.89%, so TYLG 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.