AQWA vs. CGW
AQWA (Global X Clean Water ETF) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds - AQWA tracks the Solactive Global Clean Water Industry Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AQWA returned 5.74%/yr vs 5.78%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AQWA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.
Performance
AQWA vs. CGW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AQWA achieves a 4.00% return, which is significantly higher than CGW's 3.58% return.
AQWA
- 1D
- 1.83%
- 1M
- 3.31%
- YTD
- 4.00%
- 6M
- 2.32%
- 1Y
- 4.98%
- 3Y*
- 10.42%
- 5Y*
- 5.74%
- 10Y*
- —
CGW
- 1D
- 1.75%
- 1M
- 3.46%
- YTD
- 3.58%
- 6M
- 2.52%
- 1Y
- 7.83%
- 3Y*
- 10.91%
- 5Y*
- 5.78%
- 10Y*
- 10.60%
AQWA vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 4.00% | 13.15% | 4.34% | 20.13% | -19.89% | 15.67% |
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF | 3.58% | 18.10% | 4.55% | 15.50% | -22.00% | 21.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between AQWA and CGW is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 12, 2021 | 0.91 |
The correlation between AQWA and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.10 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.41 | 0.72 | -0.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.92 | 1.72 | -0.80 |
Loading charts...
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 charts...
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 | -12.34% | -10.86% | -1.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.55% | -16.24% | +1.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.44% | -32.74% | +3.30% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.72% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.57% | -5.21% | -1.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.28% | -9.83% | +1.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.43% | 4.57% | +0.86% |
Volatility
AQWA vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison
Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) has a higher volatility of 4.86% compared to Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) at 4.62%. This indicates that AQWA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AQWA | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.86% | 4.62% | +0.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.43% | 10.79% | +0.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.66% | 13.71% | +0.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 16.86% | -0.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.67% | 17.64% | -0.97% |
AQWA vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison
AQWA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.
Dividends
AQWA vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison
AQWA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, less than CGW's 1.53% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 1.41% | 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 | 1.53% | 1.58% | 2.27% | 1.55% | 1.45% | 1.59% | 1.41% | 1.48% | 2.14% | 1.71% | 1.65% | 1.67% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, AQWA and CGW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
AQWA has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to CGW (4.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AQWA dropped -29.44% vs CGW's -57.24%.
On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 5.78% vs 5.74% for AQWA. On fees, AQWA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CGW has been the lower-risk option at 4.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 5.78% return vs 5.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AQWA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.
CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 1.41% for AQWA.
AQWA tracks Solactive Global Clean Water Industry Index, while CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AQWA and 0.57% for CGW.
CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.57 vs 0.34), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for AQWA and CGW
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer