PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGW vs. BNO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGW vs. BNO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and BNO (United States Brent Oil Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - CGW is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water Index, while BNO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Brent Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGW returned 9.49%/yr vs 13.13%/yr for BNO. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for BNO.

Performance

CGW vs. BNO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a -0.46% return, which is significantly lower than BNO's 85.31% return. Over the past 10 years, CGW has underperformed BNO with an annualized return of 9.49%, while BNO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.13% annualized return.

CGW

1D
0.87%
1M
-2.82%
YTD
-0.46%
6M
-1.22%
1Y
4.53%
3Y*
9.72%
5Y*
4.76%
10Y*
9.49%

BNO

1D
-2.71%
1M
-9.80%
YTD
85.31%
6M
79.66%
1Y
88.71%
3Y*
26.74%
5Y*
23.48%
10Y*
13.13%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGW vs. BNO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF		-0.46%18.10%4.55%15.50%-22.00%31.70%15.41%34.04%-10.47%27.08%
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		85.31%-5.44%9.67%-3.43%35.25%62.34%-38.23%36.01%-15.30%15.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and BNO is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.40

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.12

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.13

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2010

0.22

The correlation between CGW and BNO shifts across timeframes, from -0.40 (1 year) to 0.22 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF

United States Brent Oil Fund LP

Often compared with CGW:
CGW vs. PHOCGW vs. FIWCGW vs. PIOCGW vs. AQWACGW vs. SPYCGW vs. GWRSCGW vs. DGT
Often compared with BNO:
BNO vs. USOBNO vs. XLEBNO vs. USLBNO vs. BOILBNO vs. UNGBNO vs. UCOBNO vs. XOM

Return for Risk

CGW vs. BNO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGW
CGW Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
Martin Ratio Rank
BNO
BNO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BNO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNO Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
BNO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNO Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CGW vs. BNO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO). 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.

CGWBNODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.34
2.15

-1.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.57
2.65

-2.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.36

-0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.42

4.99

-4.57

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.10

9.39

-8.29

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGW vs. BNO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is lower than the BNO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and BNO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGWBNODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.34

2.15

-1.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.67

-0.38

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

0.36

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.14

+0.21

Drawdowns

CGW vs. BNO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, smaller than the maximum BNO drawdown of -87.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and BNO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGWBNODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.24%

-87.06%

+29.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.86%

-17.87%

+7.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.24%

-23.75%

+7.51%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.74%

-33.70%

+0.96%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.72%

-75.18%

+39.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.92%

-12.72%

+3.80%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.84%

-40.16%

+30.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.13%

9.48%

-5.35%

Volatility

CGW vs. BNO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.43%, while United States Brent Oil Fund LP (BNO) has a volatility of 14.12%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGWBNODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.43%

14.12%

-9.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.20%

36.21%

-26.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.31%

41.56%

-28.25%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.82%

35.40%

-18.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.72%

36.69%

-18.97%

CGW vs. BNO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is lower than BNO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGW vs. BNO - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.59%, while BNO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BNO
United States Brent Oil Fund LP		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CGW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF		1.59%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

CGW and BNO have a correlation of -0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BNO has higher volatility (14.12%) compared to CGW (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs BNO's -87.06%.

On 10-year performance, BNO leads with 13.13% vs 9.49% for CGW. On fees, CGW is cheaper at 0.57% per year. On volatility, CGW has been the lower-risk option at 4.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, BNO has performed better with a 13.13% return vs 9.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BNO.

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.59%, compared with 0.00% for BNO.

CGW is categorized as Water Equities, while BNO is Oil & Gas. CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while BNO tracks Front Month Brent Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.90% for BNO.

BNO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGW and BNO

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