CGW vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGW is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water Index, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGW returned 9.49%/yr vs 11.79%/yr for ICLN. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

CGW vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a -0.46% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 40.60% return. Over the past 10 years, CGW has underperformed ICLN with an annualized return of 9.49%, while ICLN has yielded a comparatively higher 11.79% 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%

ICLN

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 8.50%
• YTD: 40.60%
• 6M: 37.18%
• 1Y: 83.66%
• 3Y*: 9.07%
• 5Y*: 2.11%
• 10Y*: 11.79%

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

CGW vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	40.60%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-9.03%	21.47%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and ICLN is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2008	0.64

Over the past year, the correlation between CGW and ICLN has dropped to 0.42 - well below their long-term average of 0.64, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CGW vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGW	ICLN
Utilities	46.6%	32.8%
Industrials	44.3%	27.8%
Basic Materials	5.8%	1.1%
Energy	1.6%	26.4%
Technology	1.1%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	0.5%	0.1%
Real Estate	0.2%	-
Financial Services	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

CGW vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 14
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 15

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 89
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). 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	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.34	3.19	-2.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	3.86	-3.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.48	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.42	7.50	-7.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.10	21.31	-20.21
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. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and ICLN, 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

	CGW	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34	3.19	-2.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	0.08	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.54	0.43	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.34	-0.08	+0.42

Drawdowns

CGW vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGW	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.24%	-87.15%	+29.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.86%	-11.22%	+0.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.24%	-43.18%	+26.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.74%	-57.16%	+24.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.72%	-66.75%	+31.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.92%	-37.10%	+28.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.84%	-66.61%	+56.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.13%	3.94%	+0.19%

Volatility

CGW vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.43%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 9.30%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ICLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGW	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.43%	9.30%	-4.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.20%	20.20%	-10.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.31%	26.34%	-13.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	27.20%	-10.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.72%	27.20%	-9.48%

CGW vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGW vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.59%, more than ICLN's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.16%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGW and ICLN in my portfolio?

CGW and ICLN have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGW or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (9.30%) compared to CGW (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, CGW or ICLN?

On 10-year performance, ICLN leads with 11.79% vs 9.49% for CGW. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CGW or ICLN?

Over the 10-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 11.79% return vs 9.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGW or ICLN?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGW or ICLN?

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.59%, compared with 1.16% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between CGW and ICLN?

CGW is categorized as Water Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.39% for ICLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 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.