CGW vs. AQWA
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA).
CGW and AQWA are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. 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. 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. Both CGW and AQWA 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
CGW vs. AQWA - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CGW vs. AQWA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF | 2.46% | 18.10% | 4.55% | 15.50% | -22.00% | 20.31% |
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 2.38% | 13.15% | 4.34% | 20.13% | -19.89% | 15.85% |
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CGW having a 2.46% return and AQWA slightly lower at 2.38%.
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%
AQWA
- 1D
- 1.25%
- 1M
- -7.26%
- YTD
- 2.38%
- 6M
- -0.13%
- 1Y
- 14.19%
- 3Y*
- 11.24%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CGW vs. AQWA - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than AQWA's 0.50% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
CGW vs. AQWA — Risk / Return Rank
CGW
AQWA
CGW vs. AQWA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA). 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.
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.17 | 0.88 | +0.29 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.68 | 1.38 | +0.30 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.17 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.72 | 1.28 | +0.44 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.86 | 4.17 | +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
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.17 | 0.88 | +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 | 0.35 | 0.37 | -0.02 |
Correlation
The correlation between CGW and AQWA 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
CGW vs. AQWA - Dividend Comparison
CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than AQWA's 1.44% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
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% |
Drawdowns
CGW vs. AQWA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, which is greater than AQWA's maximum drawdown of -29.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and AQWA.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -57.24% | -29.44% | -27.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.33% | -11.48% | +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 | -6.24% | -8.04% | +1.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.87% | -8.27% | -1.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.03% | 3.51% | -0.48% |
Volatility
CGW vs. AQWA - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) have volatilities of 5.50% and 5.57%, 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
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.50% | 5.57% | -0.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.30% | 10.03% | -0.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.81% | 16.19% | -1.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.71% | 16.67% | +0.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.67% | 16.67% | +1.00% |