CGW vs. AQWA
CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and AQWA (Global X Clean Water ETF) are both Water Equities funds - CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index while AQWA tracks the Solactive Global Clean Water Industry Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGW returned 5.08%/yr vs 5.21%/yr for AQWA. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for AQWA.
Performance
CGW vs. AQWA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a -0.07% return, which is significantly lower than AQWA's 0.45% return.
CGW
- 1D
- -1.01%
- 1M
- 0.69%
- YTD
- -0.07%
- 6M
- -0.77%
- 1Y
- 4.10%
- 3Y*
- 9.64%
- 5Y*
- 5.08%
- 10Y*
- 9.98%
AQWA
- 1D
- -0.81%
- 1M
- 0.95%
- YTD
- 0.45%
- 6M
- -0.87%
- 1Y
- 1.37%
- 3Y*
- 9.09%
- 5Y*
- 5.21%
- 10Y*
- —
CGW vs. AQWA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF | -0.07% | 18.10% | 4.55% | 15.50% | -22.00% | 21.43% |
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 0.45% | 13.15% | 4.34% | 20.13% | -19.89% | 15.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGW and AQWA 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 12, 2021 | 0.91 |
The correlation between CGW and AQWA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 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
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.
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.
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 1.03 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.38 | 0.11 | +0.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.90 | 0.26 | +0.65 |
Loading charts...
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 charts...
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 | -10.86% | -12.34% | +1.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.24% | -14.55% | -1.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.74% | -29.44% | -3.30% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.55% | -9.77% | +1.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.83% | -8.28% | -1.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.54% | 5.39% | -0.85% |
Volatility
CGW vs. AQWA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.01%, while Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA) has a volatility of 4.43%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AQWA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGW | AQWA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.01% | 4.43% | -0.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.51% | 11.18% | -0.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.58% | 14.54% | -0.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 16.79% | +0.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.63% | 16.65% | +0.98% |
CGW vs. AQWA - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than AQWA's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGW vs. AQWA - Dividend Comparison
CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, more than AQWA's 1.46% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQWA Global X Clean Water ETF | 1.46% | 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 | 1.58% | 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, CGW and AQWA 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 (4.43%) compared to CGW (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs AQWA's -29.44%.
On 5-year performance, AQWA leads with 5.21% vs 5.08% for CGW. On fees, AQWA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CGW has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, AQWA has performed better with a 5.21% return vs 5.08%. 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 1.58%, compared with 1.46% for AQWA.
CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while AQWA tracks Solactive Global Clean Water Industry Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.50% for AQWA.
CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs 0.10), 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 CGW and AQWA
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