ETW vs IGBH
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IGBH has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. IGBH offers more diversification with 4,130 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | IGBH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.14% | |
| AUM | $936M | $233M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 5.62% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 4,130 | |
| YTD Return | +12.47% | +2.05% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.21% | +5.62% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.50% | +7.69% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.48% | +5.43% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 7.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -38.9% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Jul 22, 2015 |
ETW vs IGBH Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGBH) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% while IGBH returned +5.62%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.47% versus a gain of 2.05% for IGBH.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.50% per year against +7.69% for IGBH; over five years the annualized figures are +6.48% and +5.43% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IGBH has the edge at +2.90% 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 7.5% for IGBH. 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 -38.9% for IGBH. 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 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while IGBH charges 0.14%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $14 annually, a gap of $96 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 5.62% for IGBH.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and IGBH share 0 holdings out of 335 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 IGBH?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while IGBH charges 0.14%. IGBH is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $96 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or IGBH?
Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% vs +5.62% for IGBH, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), ETW annualized -1.06% vs +2.90% for IGBH. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or IGBH?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 7.5% for IGBH. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs IGBH -38.9%.
Should I hold both ETW and IGBH?
ETW and IGBH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and IGBH?
ETW and IGBH share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 335 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or IGBH?
ETW yields 7.47% while IGBH yields 5.62%, 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.