ETW vs SBIO
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
SBIO has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 259 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $936M | $202M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.41% | 4.05% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 87 | |
| YTD Return | +12.63% | +33.41% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.70% | +92.28% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.82% | +32.22% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.41% | +9.70% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Dec 30, 2014 |
ETW vs SBIO Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year ETW returned +19.70% while SBIO returned +92.28%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.63% versus a gain of 33.41% for SBIO.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +16.82% per year against +32.22% for SBIO; over five years the annualized figures are +6.41% and +9.70% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, SBIO has the edge at +9.68% annualized vs -1.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% 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 -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.50. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $50 annually, a gap of $60 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.41% against 4.05% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and SBIO share 1 holdings out of 363 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ETW | Weight in SBIO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZN:LN | 0.86% | 0.00% | 0.86% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ETW or SBIO?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while SBIO charges 0.50%. SBIO is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $60 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or SBIO?
Over the past year ETW returned +19.70% vs +92.28% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), ETW annualized -1.06% vs +9.68% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both ETW and SBIO?
ETW and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.50, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and SBIO?
ETW and SBIO share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 363 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or SBIO?
ETW yields 7.41% while SBIO yields 4.05%, 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.