SAWS vs SBIO
AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
SBIO has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. SBIO offers more diversification with 105 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | SAWS | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $8M | $202M | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.02% | 4.05% | |
| Holdings | 72 | 87 | |
| YTD Return | +15.23% | +33.77% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.18% | +104.83% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +32.41% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.72% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.4% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -22.0% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | Advisors Asset Management, Inc. | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | Dec 30, 2014 |
SAWS vs SBIO Performance
AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) is a ETF from Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year SAWS returned +22.18% while SBIO returned +104.83%. Year to date, SAWS is up 15.23% versus a gain of 33.77% for SBIO.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% compared with 18.4% for SAWS. 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 -22.0% for SAWS 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 0.45. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SAWS charges 0.55% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $50 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SAWS currently yields 0.02% against 4.05% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
SAWS and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 176 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, SAWS or SBIO?
SAWS has an expense ratio of 0.55% while SBIO charges 0.50%. SBIO is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, SAWS or SBIO?
Over the past year SAWS returned +22.18% vs +104.83% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), SAWS annualized +13.04% vs +9.71% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, SAWS or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 18.4% for SAWS. Worst drawdown: SAWS -22.0% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both SAWS and SBIO?
SAWS and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.45, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between SAWS and SBIO?
SAWS and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 176 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, SAWS or SBIO?
SAWS yields 0.02% while SBIO yields 4.05%, so SBIO 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.