CGW vs. CTL.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and CleanTech Lithium plc (CTL.L).

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.

Performance

CGW vs. CTL.L - Performance Comparison

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

CGW vs. CTL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	2.46%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-9.19%
CTL.L CleanTech Lithium plc	39.33%	-65.21%	-57.68%	-46.69%	0.98%

Different Trading Currencies

CGW is traded in USD, while CTL.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CTL.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a 2.46% return, which is significantly lower than CTL.L's 39.33% return.

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%

CTL.L

• 1D: -11.35%
• 1M: -30.07%
• YTD: 39.33%
• 6M: 48.57%
• 1Y: -18.16%
• 3Y*: -56.70%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

Return for Risk

CGW vs. CTL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 61
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 56
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 57

CTL.L

CTL.L Risk / Return Rank: 32
CTL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CTL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
CTL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
CTL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CTL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. CTL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and CleanTech Lithium plc (CTL.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.

	CGW	CTL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	-0.20	+1.37
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.68	0.32	+1.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.06	+0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.72	-0.33	+2.05
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	-0.49	+6.35
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. CTL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is higher than the CTL.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and CTL.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGW	CTL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.17	-0.20	+1.37
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	-0.49	+0.84

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and CTL.L is 0.18, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

CGW vs. CTL.L - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, while CTL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	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%
CTL.L CleanTech Lithium plc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

CGW vs. CTL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, smaller than the maximum CTL.L drawdown of -97.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and CTL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGW	CTL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.24%	-97.33%	+40.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.33%	-56.02%	+45.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.74%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.24%	-95.65%	+89.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.87%	-65.86%	+55.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.03%	38.43%	-35.40%

Volatility

CGW vs. CTL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 5.50%, while CleanTech Lithium plc (CTL.L) has a volatility of 33.42%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CTL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGW	CTL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.50%	33.42%	-27.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	61.82%	-52.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.81%	88.35%	-73.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.71%	85.58%	-68.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	85.58%	-67.91%