ETW vs SPGM
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
SPGM has a lower expense ratio. SPGM delivered stronger 1-year returns. SPGM offers more diversification with 2,985 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | SPGM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.09% | |
| AUM | $936M | $1.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 1.81% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 2,985 | |
| YTD Return | +12.47% | +13.82% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.21% | +24.44% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.50% | +21.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.48% | +11.73% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 13.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -34.0% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Feb 27, 2012 |
ETW vs SPGM Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (SPGM) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% while SPGM returned +24.44%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.47% versus a gain of 13.82% for SPGM.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.50% per year against +21.66% for SPGM; over five years the annualized figures are +6.48% and +11.73% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SPGM has the edge at +9.83% 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 13.6% for SPGM. 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 -34.0% for SPGM. 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while SPGM charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $9 annually, a gap of $101 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 1.81% for SPGM.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and SPGM share 154 holdings out of 2951 unique holdings combined, representing a 36.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ETW or SPGM?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while SPGM charges 0.09%. SPGM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $101 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or SPGM?
Over the past year ETW returned +21.21% vs +24.44% for SPGM, so SPGM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), ETW annualized -1.06% vs +9.83% for SPGM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or SPGM?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 13.6% for SPGM. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs SPGM -34.0%.
Should I hold both ETW and SPGM?
ETW and SPGM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and SPGM?
ETW and SPGM share 154 common holdings with a 36.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2951 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or SPGM?
ETW yields 7.47% while SPGM yields 1.81%, 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.