ETW vs PHDG
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF
Quick Verdict
PHDG has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. PHDG offers more diversification with 494 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | PHDG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.39% | |
| AUM | $936M | $61M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.41% | 1.68% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 514 | |
| YTD Return | +11.94% | +12.11% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.04% | +17.06% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.61% | +9.49% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.28% | +4.59% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 9.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -23.6% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Dec 5, 2012 |
ETW vs PHDG Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ETW returned +20.04% while PHDG returned +17.06%. Year to date, ETW is up 11.94% versus a gain of 12.11% for PHDG.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +16.61% per year against +9.49% for PHDG; over five years the annualized figures are +6.28% and +4.59% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, PHDG has the edge at +4.38% annualized vs -1.09%. 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 9.9% for PHDG. 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 -23.6% for PHDG. 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 0.53. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while PHDG charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $39 annually, a gap of $71 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.41% against 1.68% for PHDG.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and PHDG share 108 holdings out of 645 unique holdings combined, representing a 38.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ETW or PHDG?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while PHDG charges 0.39%. PHDG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $71 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or PHDG?
Over the past year ETW returned +20.04% vs +17.06% for PHDG, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), ETW annualized -1.09% vs +4.38% for PHDG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or PHDG?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 9.9% for PHDG. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs PHDG -23.6%.
Should I hold both ETW and PHDG?
ETW and PHDG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.53, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and PHDG?
ETW and PHDG share 108 common holdings with a 38.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 645 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or PHDG?
ETW yields 7.41% while PHDG yields 1.68%, 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.