ETW vs MFEM
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 701 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $936M | $156M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 2.39% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 701 | |
| YTD Return | +12.70% | +21.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.91% | +33.81% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.63% | +20.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.41% | +8.97% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 17.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Aug 31, 2017 |
ETW vs MFEM Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year ETW returned +20.91% while MFEM returned +33.81%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.70% versus a gain of 21.80% for MFEM.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.63% per year against +20.43% for MFEM; over five years the annualized figures are +6.41% and +8.97% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, MFEM has the edge at +6.84% annualized vs -1.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFEM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% 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 -45.3% for MFEM. 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $49 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 2.39% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and MFEM share 0 holdings out of 762 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 MFEM?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while MFEM charges 0.49%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $61 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or MFEM?
Over the past year ETW returned +20.91% vs +33.81% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), ETW annualized -1.05% vs +6.84% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or MFEM?
MFEM has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both ETW and MFEM?
ETW and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and MFEM?
ETW and MFEM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 762 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or MFEM?
ETW yields 7.47% while MFEM yields 2.39%, 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.