ETW vs SCHQ
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF
Quick Verdict
SCHQ has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | SCHQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $936M | $803M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 4.91% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 100 | |
| YTD Return | +12.36% | -2.75% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.81% | -0.54% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.06% | +0.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.39% | -7.03% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 13.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -46.7% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Charles Schwab Asset Management | |
| Category | Alternative | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Oct 10, 2019 |
ETW vs SCHQ Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF (SCHQ) is a ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year ETW returned +19.81% while SCHQ returned -0.54%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.36% versus a loss of 2.75% for SCHQ.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.06% per year against +0.43% for SCHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.39% and -7.03% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, ETW has the edge at -1.07% annualized vs -4.42%. 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 13.5% for SCHQ. 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 -46.7% for SCHQ. 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 0.23. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while SCHQ charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $3 annually, a gap of $107 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 4.91% for SCHQ.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and SCHQ share 0 holdings out of 351 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 SCHQ?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while SCHQ charges 0.03%. SCHQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $107 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or SCHQ?
Over the past year ETW returned +19.81% vs -0.54% for SCHQ, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), ETW annualized -1.07% vs -4.42% for SCHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or SCHQ?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 13.5% for SCHQ. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs SCHQ -46.7%.
Should I hold both ETW and SCHQ?
ETW and SCHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.23, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and SCHQ?
ETW and SCHQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 351 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or SCHQ?
ETW yields 7.47% while SCHQ yields 4.91%, 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.