AWF vs. LQD
Compare and contrast key facts about AllianceBernstein Global High Income Closed Fund (AWF) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD).
AWF is an actively managed fund by AllianceBernstein. It was launched on Jul 28, 1993. LQD is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. It was launched on Jul 26, 2002.
Performance
AWF vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
AWF vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AWF AllianceBernstein Global High Income Closed Fund | -3.52% | 7.54% | 14.30% | 18.37% | -16.62% | 9.95% | 4.40% | 23.40% | -11.35% | 7.77% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | -0.38% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AWF achieves a -3.52% return, which is significantly lower than LQD's -0.38% return. Over the past 10 years, AWF has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 6.15%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.61% annualized return.
AWF
- 1D
- 2.94%
- 1M
- -1.78%
- YTD
- -3.52%
- 6M
- -5.90%
- 1Y
- 1.90%
- 3Y*
- 9.54%
- 5Y*
- 4.56%
- 10Y*
- 6.15%
LQD
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- -2.07%
- YTD
- -0.38%
- 6M
- -0.04%
- 1Y
- 4.88%
- 3Y*
- 4.26%
- 5Y*
- 0.09%
- 10Y*
- 2.61%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
AWF vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
AWF has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
AWF vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
AWF
LQD
AWF vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianceBernstein Global High Income Closed Fund (AWF) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| AWF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.17 | 0.74 | -0.57 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.29 | 1.04 | -0.75 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 1.14 | -0.09 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.20 | 1.50 | -1.31 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.52 | 4.15 | -3.63 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AWF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.17 | 0.74 | -0.57 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 | 0.01 | +0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.41 | 0.30 | +0.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.31 | 0.54 | -0.23 |
Correlation
The correlation between AWF and LQD is 0.18, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
AWF vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
AWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.73%, more than LQD's 4.52% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AWF AllianceBernstein Global High Income Closed Fund | 7.73% | 7.81% | 7.47% | 7.33% | 10.30% | 6.48% | 6.68% | 6.62% | 7.97% | 6.03% | 7.73% | 10.28% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.52% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
Drawdowns
AWF vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AWF drawdown since its inception was -55.54%, which is greater than LQD's maximum drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AWF and LQD.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| AWF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.54% | -24.95% | -30.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.19% | -3.38% | -6.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.25% | -24.95% | -0.30% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.12% | -24.95% | -15.17% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.55% | -4.52% | -3.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.35% | -3.99% | -8.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.85% | 1.22% | +2.63% |
Volatility
AWF vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Closed Fund (AWF) has a higher volatility of 4.56% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 2.65%. This indicates that AWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| AWF | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.56% | 2.65% | +1.91% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.85% | 3.76% | +2.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.30% | 6.60% | +4.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.98% | 8.66% | +3.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.16% | 8.67% | +6.49% |