BBEM vs ETW
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF vs Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund
Quick Verdict
BBEM has a lower expense ratio. BBEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. BBEM offers more diversification with 889 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BBEM | ETW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 1.10% | |
| AUM | $748M | $936M | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.52% | 7.41% | |
| Holdings | 1,132 | 291 | |
| YTD Return | +15.27% | +11.26% | |
| 1Y Return | +32.50% | +19.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.67% | +16.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +6.15% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 16.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -17.4% | -72.8% | |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Eaton Vance | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 10, 2023 | Sep 30, 2005 |
BBEM vs ETW Performance
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) is a ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance. Over the past year BBEM returned +32.50% while ETW returned +19.31%. Year to date, BBEM is up 15.27% versus a gain of 11.26% for ETW.
Over three years, BBEM compounded at +19.67% per year against +16.49% for ETW. Across the full 3-year window we track, BBEM has the edge at +19.32% annualized vs -1.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ETW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 15.1% for BBEM. 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 -17.4% for BBEM and -72.8% for ETW. 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 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BBEM charges 0.15% per year while ETW charges 1.10%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $110 annually, a gap of $95 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BBEM currently yields 2.52% against 7.41% for ETW.
Holdings Overlap
BBEM and ETW share 1 holdings out of 1147 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BBEM | Weight in ETW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PG | 0.01% | 0.04% | 0.03% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BBEM or ETW?
BBEM has an expense ratio of 0.15% while ETW charges 1.10%. BBEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $95 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BBEM or ETW?
Over the past year BBEM returned +32.50% vs +19.31% for ETW, so BBEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BBEM annualized +19.32% vs -1.12% for ETW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BBEM or ETW?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 15.1% for BBEM. Worst drawdown: BBEM -17.4% vs ETW -72.8%.
Should I hold both BBEM and ETW?
BBEM and ETW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BBEM and ETW?
BBEM and ETW share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1147 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BBEM or ETW?
BBEM yields 2.52% while ETW yields 7.41%, so ETW 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.