ETW vs FLGV
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Franklin US Treasury Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
FLGV has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | FLGV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.09% | |
| AUM | $936M | $1.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 4.23% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 51 | |
| YTD Return | +12.47% | -0.13% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.21% | +1.80% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.50% | +3.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.48% | -0.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 5.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -18.4% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Jun 9, 2020 |
ETW vs FLGV Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Franklin US Treasury Bond ETF (FLGV) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% while FLGV returned +1.80%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.47% versus a loss of 0.13% for FLGV.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.50% per year against +3.75% for FLGV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.48% and -0.54% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FLGV has the edge at -0.85% annualized vs -1.06%. 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 5.0% for FLGV. 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 -72.8% for ETW and -18.4% for FLGV. 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 0.46. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while FLGV charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $9 annually, a gap of $101 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 4.23% for FLGV.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and FLGV share 0 holdings out of 260 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, ETW or FLGV?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while FLGV charges 0.09%. FLGV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $101 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or FLGV?
Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% vs +1.80% for FLGV, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), ETW annualized -1.06% vs -0.85% for FLGV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or FLGV?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 5.0% for FLGV. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs FLGV -18.4%.
Should I hold both ETW and FLGV?
ETW and FLGV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.46, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and FLGV?
ETW and FLGV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 260 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or FLGV?
ETW yields 7.47% while FLGV yields 4.23%, 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.