ETW vs TYLG
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund vs Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
TYLG has a lower expense ratio. TYLG delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ETW | TYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.10% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $936M | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 7.47% | 8.89% | |
| Holdings | 291 | 78 | |
| YTD Return | +12.36% | +23.23% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.81% | +34.36% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.06% | +24.23% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.39% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 15.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -72.8% | -24.5% | |
| Fund Family | Eaton Vance | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative | |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2005 | Nov 21, 2022 |
ETW vs TYLG Performance
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance and Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year ETW returned +19.81% while TYLG returned +34.36%. Year to date, ETW is up 12.36% versus a gain of 23.23% for TYLG.
Over three years, ETW compounded at +17.06% per year against +24.23% for TYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, TYLG has the edge at +25.83% annualized vs -1.07%. 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 15.9% for TYLG. 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 -24.5% for TYLG. 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 0.68. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ETW charges 1.10% per year while TYLG charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $110 vs $60 annually, a gap of $50 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ETW currently yields 7.47% against 8.89% for TYLG.
Holdings Overlap
ETW and TYLG share 19 holdings out of 314 unique holdings combined, representing a 20.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ETW or TYLG?
ETW has an expense ratio of 1.10% while TYLG charges 0.60%. TYLG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $50 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ETW or TYLG?
Over the past year ETW returned +19.81% vs +34.36% for TYLG, so TYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), ETW annualized -1.07% vs +25.83% for TYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ETW or TYLG?
ETW has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 15.9% for TYLG. Worst drawdown: ETW -72.8% vs TYLG -24.5%.
Should I hold both ETW and TYLG?
ETW and TYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ETW and TYLG?
ETW and TYLG share 19 common holdings with a 20.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 314 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ETW or TYLG?
ETW yields 7.47% while TYLG yields 8.89%, so TYLG 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.