CGW vs. PHO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and PHO (Invesco Water Resources ETF) are both Water Equities funds from Invesco - CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index while PHO tracks the NASDAQ OMX US Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGW returned 9.98%/yr vs 11.78%/yr for PHO. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for PHO.

Performance

CGW vs. PHO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a -0.07% return, which is significantly higher than PHO's -5.09% return. Over the past 10 years, CGW has underperformed PHO with an annualized return of 9.98%, while PHO has yielded a comparatively higher 11.78% annualized 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%

PHO

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: -5.09%
• 6M: -6.73%
• 1Y: -3.23%
• 3Y*: 7.30%
• 5Y*: 5.25%
• 10Y*: 11.78%

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

CGW vs. PHO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	-0.07%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-22.00%	31.70%	15.41%	34.04%	-10.47%	27.08%
PHO Invesco Water Resources ETF	-5.09%	7.62%	8.59%	18.85%	-14.86%	31.28%	20.83%	37.57%	-6.40%	23.55%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and PHO is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2007	0.84

The correlation between CGW and PHO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGW vs. PHO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGW	PHO
Utilities	45.8%	13.8%
Industrials	44.6%	55.1%
Basic Materials	6.0%	8.5%
Energy	1.7%	-
Technology	1.2%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	0.5%	-
Real Estate	0.2%	-
Financial Services	0.0%	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	9.6%

Return for Risk

CGW vs. PHO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 12
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 13

PHO

PHO Risk / Return Rank: 6
PHO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
PHO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
PHO Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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. PHO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO). 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	PHO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.31	-0.21	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.52	-0.20	+0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	0.98	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	-0.24	+0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.90	-0.56	+1.46

CGW vs. PHO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.31, which is higher than the PHO Sharpe Ratio of -0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and PHO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGW vs. PHO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, roughly equal to the maximum PHO drawdown of -55.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and PHO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGW	PHO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.24%	-55.62%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.86%	-13.78%	+2.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.24%	-19.19%	+2.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.74%	-28.60%	-4.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.72%	-34.92%	-0.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.55%	-10.33%	+1.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.83%	-10.18%	+0.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.54%	5.79%	-1.25%

Volatility

CGW vs. PHO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.01%, while Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) has a volatility of 4.40%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PHO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGW	PHO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	4.40%	-0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.51%	11.31%	-0.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.58%	15.17%	-1.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	18.39%	-1.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.63%	19.45%	-1.82%

CGW vs. PHO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is lower than PHO's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGW vs. PHO - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, more than PHO's 0.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PHO Invesco Water Resources ETF	0.61%	0.54%	0.45%	0.59%	0.49%	0.20%	0.39%	0.43%	0.46%	0.34%	0.47%	0.75%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGW and PHO in my portfolio?

CGW and PHO have a correlation of 0.82, 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 PHO?

PHO has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to CGW (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs PHO's -55.62%.

Which ETF is better, CGW or PHO?

On 10-year performance, PHO leads with 11.78% vs 9.98% for CGW. On fees, CGW is cheaper at 0.57% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CGW or PHO?

Over the 10-year period, PHO has performed better with a 11.78% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGW or PHO?

CGW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for PHO.

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

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.58%, compared with 0.61% for PHO.

What is the main difference between CGW and PHO?

CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while PHO tracks NASDAQ OMX US Water Index. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.59% for PHO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.21), 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.