AQWA vs. CGW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

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 4.75%/yr vs 4.77%/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

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AQWA achieves a -0.74% return, which is significantly higher than CGW's -1.01% return.

AQWA

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: -3.17%
• YTD: -0.74%
• 6M: -2.64%
• 1Y: 3.06%
• 3Y*: 9.08%
• 5Y*: 4.75%
• 10Y*: —

CGW

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: -3.08%
• YTD: -1.01%
• 6M: -1.40%
• 1Y: 3.62%
• 3Y*: 9.43%
• 5Y*: 4.77%
• 10Y*: 9.49%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AQWA vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF	-0.74%	13.15%	4.34%	20.13%	-19.89%	15.85%
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	-1.01%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-22.00%	20.31%

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	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2021	0.91

The correlation between AQWA and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

AQWA vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AQWA	CGW
Industrials	56.9%	44.3%
Utilities	34.8%	46.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Technology	2.0%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.7%	0.5%
Basic Materials	1.7%	5.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	1.6%
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

AQWA vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AQWA

AQWA Risk / Return Rank: 11
AQWA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
AQWA Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
AQWA Omega Ratio Rank: 11
AQWA Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
AQWA Martin Ratio Rank: 11

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 12
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 13

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

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 ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.21	0.27	-0.06
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.40	0.47	-0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.05	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.20	0.35	-0.15
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.50	0.94	-0.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AQWA vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AQWA Sharpe Ratio is 0.21, which is comparable to the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AQWA and CGW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AQWA	CGW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21	0.27	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.29	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.34	-0.02

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	AQWA	CGW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.84%	-9.42%	-1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.27%	-9.84%	+1.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.85%	4.04%	+0.81%

Volatility

AQWA vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) is 4.08%, while Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) has a volatility of 4.55%. This indicates that AQWA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AQWA	CGW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.08%	4.55%	-0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.86%	10.19%	+0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.34%	13.28%	+1.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.76%	16.82%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.66%	17.72%	-1.06%

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 1.48%, less than CGW's 1.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF	1.48%	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	1.60%	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

Can I hold both AQWA and CGW in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, AQWA or CGW?

CGW has higher volatility (4.55%) compared to AQWA (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AQWA dropped -29.44% vs CGW's -57.24%.

Which ETF is better, AQWA or CGW?

On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 4.77% vs 4.75% for AQWA. On fees, AQWA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, AQWA has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AQWA or CGW?

Over the 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 4.77% return vs 4.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AQWA or CGW?

AQWA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AQWA or CGW?

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.60%, compared with 1.48% for AQWA.

What is the main difference between AQWA and CGW?

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.27 vs 0.21), 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.