Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund (ETW) vs Kayne Anderson BDC (KBDC)
Head-to-head comparison of performance, valuation, growth, profitability and dividends. Prices delayed 15 minutes; data as of Oct 9, 2026.
Summary
Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund (ETW) has outperformed Kayne Anderson BDC (KBDC) over the past year, gaining 4.1% versus a loss of 7.8%. Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund is the larger company by market cap ($1.04 billion vs $826.1 million), about 1.3 times the size. On valuation, Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund trades at a lower trailing P/E (4.6x vs 11.5x for Kayne Anderson BDC).
Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund pays a dividend yielding 8.35%, while Kayne Anderson BDC does not currently pay one.
Summary generated from market data by MetaCap's automated system. Methodology
Relative performance
Percent change in share price from the first common trading day shown; excludes dividends.
Head-to-head
| Metric | ETW | KBDC |
|---|---|---|
| Share price | $9.54 | $12.51 |
| Market cap | $1.04B | $826.13M |
| 1-day change | +0.53% | +0.89% |
| YTD return | +3.47% | -12.64% |
| 1-year return | +4.15% | -7.81% |
| 5-year return | -14.52% | — |
| P/E ratio (TTM) | 4.63 | 11.48 |
| Forward P/E | — | 7.94 |
| EPS (TTM) | $2.06 | $1.09 |
| Dividend yield | 8.35% | 12.90% |
| Annual dividend | $0.797 | $0.00 |
| 52-week high | $9.95 | $15.87 |
| 52-week low | $8.46 | $12.32 |
| Distance from 52-week high | -4.12% | -21.17% |
| Analyst consensus | — | none |
| Avg. price target upside | — | +15.91% |
| Average volume | 266.34K | 372.31K |
| Shares outstanding | 108.60M | 66.04M |
| Sector | Financial Services | Financial Services |
| Industry | Asset Management | Asset Management |
Highlighted cells mark the higher value for growth, returns, margins and yield, and the lower value for P/E ratios. Highlighting is a mechanical comparison, not a recommendation.
Key differences
- ETW has outperformed KBDC by 12.0 percentage points over the past year.
- Kayne Anderson BDC trades at a higher earnings multiple (11.5x vs 4.6x trailing P/E).
- Kayne Anderson BDC offers a meaningfully higher dividend yield (12.90% vs 8.35%).
About Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund
ETW stock →Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund is a closed-ended equity mutual fund launched and managed by Eaton Vance Management. It is co-managed by Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC.
Financial Services · Asset Management
About Kayne Anderson BDC
KBDC stock →Kayne Anderson BDC, Inc. is business development company and an externally managed, closed-end, non-diversified management investment company that intends to elect to be regulated as a BDC under the 1940 Act.
Financial Services · Asset Management
ETW vs KBDC FAQ
Which is bigger, Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund or Kayne Anderson BDC?
Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund (ETW) is larger, with a market capitalization of $1.04B compared with $826.13M for Kayne Anderson BDC (KBDC).
Which stock has performed better over the past year, ETW or KBDC?
ETW returned +4.15% over the past 12 months, compared with -7.81% for KBDC (price return, excluding dividends). Past performance does not predict future results.
Which has the lower P/E ratio, ETW or KBDC?
ETW has the lower trailing P/E at 4.6, versus 11.5 for KBDC. A lower P/E is not by itself a sign of a better investment; it can reflect slower expected growth or higher risk.
Which pays a higher dividend, Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund or Kayne Anderson BDC?
Kayne Anderson BDC has the higher yield at 12.90%, compared with 8.35% for Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund.
Are Eaton Vance Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunites Fund and Kayne Anderson BDC in the same industry?
Yes. Both are classified in the Asset Management industry within the Financial Services sector.