ETW vs FNGG
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF
Quick Verdict
FNGG has a lower expense ratio. FNGG delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | FNGG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $936M | $143M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 10.70% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 18 | |
| YTD Return | +13.73% | +33.72% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.92% | +33.40% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.79% | +61.59% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.81% | +4.44% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 58.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -91.3% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Direxion Shares ETF Trust | |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Sep 29, 2021 |
ETW vs FNGG Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF (FNGG) is a ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year ETW returned +20.92% while FNGG returned +33.40%. Year to date, ETW is up 13.73% versus a gain of 33.72% for FNGG.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.79% per year against +61.59% for FNGG; over five years the annualized figures are +6.81% and +4.44% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, FNGG has the edge at +4.44% annualized vs -1.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNGG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 58.5% compared with 16.9% for ETW. 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 -91.3% for FNGG. 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 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while FNGG charges 0.97%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $97 annually, a gap of $13 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 10.70% for FNGG.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and FNGG share 10 holdings out of 262 unique holdings combined, representing a 21.8% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ETW or FNGG?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while FNGG charges 0.97%. FNGG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $13 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or FNGG?
Over the past year ETW returned +20.92% vs +33.40% for FNGG, so FNGG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), ETW annualized -1.01% vs +4.44% for FNGG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or FNGG?
FNGG has been the more volatile fund at 58.5% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs FNGG -91.3%.
Should I hold both ETW and FNGG?
ETW and FNGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and FNGG?
ETW and FNGG share 10 common holdings with a 21.8% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 262 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or FNGG?
ETW yields 7.47% while FNGG yields 10.70%, so FNGG 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.