ETW vs FMN
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund
Quick Verdict
FMN has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | FMN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.75% | |
| AUM | $936M | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 4.43% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 150 | |
| YTD Return | +12.70% | +1.66% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.91% | +8.44% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.63% | +7.15% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.41% | -3.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 14.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -53.4% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Federated Hermes | |
| Category | Alternative | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Dec 20, 2002 |
ETW vs FMN Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund (FMN) is a ETF from Federated Hermes. Over the past year ETW returned +20.91% while FMN returned +8.44%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.70% versus a gain of 1.66% for FMN.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.63% per year against +7.15% for FMN; over five years the annualized figures are +6.41% and -3.05% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, FMN has the edge at -0.28% annualized vs -1.05%. 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 14.7% for FMN. 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 -53.4% for FMN. 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 0.44. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while FMN charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $75 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 4.43% for FMN.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and FMN share 0 holdings out of 344 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 FMN?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while FMN charges 0.75%. FMN is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $35 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or FMN?
Over the past year ETW returned +20.91% vs +8.44% for FMN, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), ETW annualized -1.05% vs -0.28% for FMN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or FMN?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 14.7% for FMN. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs FMN -53.4%.
Should I hold both ETW and FMN?
ETW and FMN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.44, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and FMN?
ETW and FMN share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 344 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or FMN?
ETW yields 7.47% while FMN yields 4.43%, 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.