ETW vs NMI
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc.
Quick Verdict
NMI has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 259 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | NMI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.73% | |
| AUM | $936M | - | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.41% | 4.57% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 220 | |
| YTD Return | +12.63% | +8.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.70% | +11.82% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.82% | +8.97% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.41% | +1.70% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 11.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -34.4% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Nuveen | |
| Category | Alternative | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Apr 20, 1988 |
ETW vs NMI Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc. (NMI) is a ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year ETW returned +19.70% while NMI returned +11.82%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.63% versus a gain of 8.64% for NMI.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +16.82% per year against +8.97% for NMI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.41% and +1.70% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, NMI has the edge at +0.30% 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 11.0% for NMI. 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 -34.4% for NMI. 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 0.20. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while NMI charges 0.73%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $73 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.41% against 4.57% for NMI.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and NMI share 0 holdings out of 354 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 NMI?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while NMI charges 0.73%. NMI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $37 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or NMI?
Over the past year ETW returned +19.70% vs +11.82% for NMI, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), ETW annualized -1.06% vs +0.30% for NMI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or NMI?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 11.0% for NMI. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs NMI -34.4%.
Should I hold both ETW and NMI?
ETW and NMI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.20, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and NMI?
ETW and NMI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 354 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or NMI?
ETW yields 7.41% while NMI yields 4.57%, 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.