AQWA vs. CGW
Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW).
AQWA and CGW are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. AQWA is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Solactive Global Clean Water Industry Index. It was launched on Apr 8, 2021. CGW is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the S&P Global Water Index. It was launched on May 14, 2007. Both AQWA and CGW are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
AQWA vs. CGW - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
AQWA vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 2.38% | 13.15% | 4.34% | 20.13% | -19.89% | 15.85% |
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF | 2.46% | 18.10% | 4.55% | 15.50% | -22.00% | 20.31% |
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with AQWA having a 2.38% return and CGW slightly higher at 2.46%.
AQWA
- 1D
- 1.25%
- 1M
- -7.26%
- YTD
- 2.38%
- 6M
- -0.13%
- 1Y
- 14.19%
- 3Y*
- 11.24%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGW
- 1D
- 0.97%
- 1M
- -4.82%
- YTD
- 2.46%
- 6M
- 2.51%
- 1Y
- 17.20%
- 3Y*
- 10.96%
- 5Y*
- 7.16%
- 10Y*
- 10.56%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
AQWA vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison
AQWA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
AQWA vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank
AQWA
CGW
AQWA vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW). 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.
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.88 | 1.17 | -0.29 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.38 | 1.68 | -0.30 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.22 | -0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.28 | 1.72 | -0.44 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.17 | 5.86 | -1.70 |
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
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.88 | 1.17 | -0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.60 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | 0.35 | +0.02 |
Correlation
The correlation between AQWA and CGW is 0.91, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
AQWA vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison
AQWA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than CGW's 1.54% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 1.44% | 1.47% | 1.40% | 1.53% | 1.56% | 1.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF | 1.54% | 1.58% | 2.27% | 1.55% | 1.45% | 1.59% | 1.41% | 1.48% | 2.14% | 1.71% | 1.65% | 1.67% |
Drawdowns
AQWA vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AQWA drawdown since its inception was -29.44%, smaller than the maximum CGW drawdown of -57.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AQWA and CGW.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.44% | -57.24% | +27.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.48% | -10.33% | -1.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -32.74% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.72% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.04% | -6.24% | -1.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.27% | -9.87% | +1.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.51% | 3.03% | +0.48% |
Volatility
AQWA vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison
Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) have volatilities of 5.57% and 5.50%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.57% | 5.50% | +0.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.03% | 9.30% | +0.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.19% | 14.81% | +1.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.67% | 16.71% | -0.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.67% | 17.67% | -1.00% |