CGW vs. QQQM

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and QQQM (Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGW is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water Index, while QQQM is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGW returned 5.78%/yr vs 16.21%/yr for QQQM. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QQQM.

Performance

CGW vs. QQQM - 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 NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a 3.58% return, which is significantly lower than QQQM's 16.89% return.

CGW

• 1D: 1.75%
• 1M: 3.46%
• YTD: 3.58%
• 6M: 2.52%
• 1Y: 7.83%
• 3Y*: 10.91%
• 5Y*: 5.78%
• 10Y*: 10.60%

QQQM

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: -1.82%
• YTD: 16.89%
• 6M: 15.09%
• 1Y: 33.06%
• 3Y*: 26.84%
• 5Y*: 16.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGW vs. QQQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	3.58%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-22.00%	31.70%	7.72%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	16.89%	20.85%	25.68%	55.01%	-32.52%	27.45%	6.64%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and QQQM is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.58

The correlation between CGW and QQQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.59 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CGW vs. QQQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGW	QQQM
Utilities	45.8%	1.2%
Industrials	44.6%	2.6%
Basic Materials	6.0%	1.0%
Energy	1.7%	0.5%
Technology	1.2%	58.7%
Consumer Cyclical	0.5%	11.4%
Real Estate	0.2%	0.1%
Financial Services	0.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	-	14.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Healthcare	-	3.7%

Return for Risk

CGW vs. QQQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 18
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 17
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 18

QQQM

QQQM Risk / Return Rank: 64
QQQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
QQQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QQQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QQQM Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. QQQM - 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 NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). 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	QQQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	1.87	-1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	2.46	-1.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.33	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.72	2.78	-2.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.72	10.21	-8.50

CGW vs. QQQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the QQQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and QQQM, 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. QQQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, which is greater than QQQM's maximum drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and QQQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGW	QQQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.24%	-35.04%	-22.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.86%	-11.96%	+1.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.24%	-22.70%	+6.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.74%	-35.04%	+2.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.21%	-3.91%	-1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.83%	-8.19%	-1.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.57%	3.25%	+1.32%

Volatility

CGW vs. QQQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.62%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) has a volatility of 8.84%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGW	QQQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	8.84%	-4.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.79%	14.40%	-3.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.71%	17.79%	-4.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.86%	22.54%	-5.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.64%	22.29%	-4.65%

CGW vs. QQQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGW vs. QQQM - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, more than QQQM's 0.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	1.53%	1.58%	2.27%	1.55%	1.45%	1.59%	1.41%	1.48%	2.14%	1.71%	1.65%	1.67%
QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF	0.44%	0.50%	0.61%	0.65%	0.83%	0.40%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGW and QQQM in my portfolio?

CGW and QQQM have a correlation of 0.41, 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 QQQM?

QQQM has higher volatility (8.84%) compared to CGW (4.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs QQQM's -35.04%.

Which ETF is better, CGW or QQQM?

On 5-year performance, QQQM leads with 16.21% vs 5.78% for CGW. On fees, QQQM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CGW has been the lower-risk option at 4.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGW or QQQM?

Over the 5-year period, QQQM has performed better with a 16.21% return vs 5.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGW or QQQM?

QQQM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

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

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.44% for QQQM.

What is the main difference between CGW and QQQM?

CGW is categorized as Water Equities, while QQQM is Nasdaq-100. CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while QQQM tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.15% for QQQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 0.57), 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.