AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AQWG.L (Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF) and GLGG.L (L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF) are both Water Equities funds tracking the S&P Global Water TR, from Global X and Legal & General respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, AQWG.L returned 7.66%/yr vs 8.33%/yr for GLGG.L. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AQWG.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for GLGG.L.

Performance

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L) and L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

AQWG.L is traded in GBP, while GLGG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the GLGG.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AQWG.L achieves a -0.99% return, which is significantly lower than GLGG.L's 2.12% return.

AQWG.L

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -1.39%
• YTD: -0.99%
• 6M: -3.24%
• 1Y: 2.35%
• 3Y*: 7.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLGG.L

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -0.96%
• YTD: 2.12%
• 6M: 1.19%
• 1Y: 9.96%
• 3Y*: 8.33%
• 5Y*: 6.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AQWG.L Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF	-0.99%	5.17%	7.79%	18.26%	-10.22%	-2.19%
GLGG.L L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF	2.12%	7.81%	5.74%	14.58%	-7.49%	-0.57%

Correlation

The correlation between AQWG.L and GLGG.L is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2021	0.84

The correlation between AQWG.L and GLGG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AQWG.L

AQWG.L Risk / Return Rank: 11
AQWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
AQWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
AQWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 11
AQWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
AQWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

GLGG.L

GLGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 21
GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GLGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GLGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L) and L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L). 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.

	AQWG.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.18	0.72	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.33	1.07	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.13	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.21	0.85	-0.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.52	2.15	-1.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AQWG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.18, which is lower than the GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AQWG.L and GLGG.L, 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

	AQWG.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18	0.72	-0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.44	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.58	-0.35

Drawdowns

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AQWG.L drawdown since its inception was -23.03%, smaller than the maximum GLGG.L drawdown of -27.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AQWG.L and GLGG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	AQWG.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.03%	-27.08%	+4.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.23%	-11.62%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.73%	-16.35%	-1.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.71%	-8.46%	-1.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.35%	-5.14%	-2.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.49%	4.63%	-0.14%

Volatility

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L) is 3.98%, while L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) has a volatility of 4.33%. This indicates that AQWG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLGG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AQWG.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.98%	4.33%	-0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.96%	11.10%	-1.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.03%	13.76%	-0.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.00%	15.04%	-0.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.00%	17.68%	-2.68%

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AQWG.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GLGG.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

AQWG.L vs. GLGG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AQWG.L nor GLGG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AQWG.L and GLGG.L in my portfolio?

AQWG.L and GLGG.L have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AQWG.L or GLGG.L?

On fees, GLGG.L is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, AQWG.L or GLGG.L?

GLGG.L is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for AQWG.L.

What is the main difference between AQWG.L and GLGG.L?

Both ETFs track S&P Global Water TR. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AQWG.L and 0.49% for GLGG.L.