PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CGW vs. RSP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CGW vs. RSP - 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 S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP). 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 RSP's 10.53% return. Over the past 10 years, CGW has underperformed RSP with an annualized return of 9.49%, while RSP has yielded a comparatively higher 11.86% 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%

RSP

1D
0.76%
1M
3.73%
YTD
10.53%
6M
10.98%
1Y
20.68%
3Y*
15.65%
5Y*
8.50%
10Y*
11.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGW vs. RSP - 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%
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
10.53%11.21%12.79%13.70%-11.62%29.41%12.66%28.91%-7.84%18.52%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and RSP is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.75

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

0.79

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

0.82

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

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2007

0.82

The correlation between CGW and RSP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGW vs. RSP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CGW
RSP

Utilities

46.6%
6.1%

Industrials

44.3%
14.1%

Basic Materials

5.8%
4.1%

Energy

1.6%
4.5%

Technology

1.1%
19.6%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
9.9%

Real Estate

0.2%
6.0%

Financial Services

0.0%
14.5%

Communication Services

-

3.7%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.5%

Healthcare

-

11.0%

Utilities

CGW
46.6%
RSP
6.1%

Industrials

CGW
44.3%
RSP
14.1%

Basic Materials

CGW
5.8%
RSP
4.1%

Energy

CGW
1.6%
RSP
4.5%

Technology

CGW
1.1%
RSP
19.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CGW
0.5%
RSP
9.9%

Real Estate

CGW
0.2%
RSP
6.0%

Financial Services

CGW
0.0%
RSP
14.5%

Communication Services

CGW

-

RSP
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

CGW

-

RSP
6.5%

Healthcare

CGW

-

RSP
11.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

CGW vs. RSP — 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

RSP
RSP Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
RSP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RSP Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
RSP Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
RSP Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
RSP Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
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. RSP - 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 S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP). 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.


CGWRSPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.03

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.32

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.42

2.64

-2.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.10

10.05

-8.94

CGW vs. RSP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is lower than the RSP Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and RSP, 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


CGWRSPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.34

1.80

-1.45

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.53

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

0.65

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.57

-0.23

Drawdowns

CGW vs. RSP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, roughly equal to the maximum RSP drawdown of -59.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and RSP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGWRSPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.24%

-59.92%

+2.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.86%

-7.85%

-3.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.24%

-17.81%

+1.57%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.74%

-21.38%

-11.36%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.72%

-39.04%

+3.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.92%

0.00%

-8.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.84%

-6.65%

-3.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.13%

2.06%

+2.07%

Volatility

CGW vs. RSP - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) has a higher volatility of 4.43% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) at 2.55%. This indicates that CGW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGWRSPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.43%

2.55%

+1.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.20%

8.31%

+1.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.31%

11.56%

+1.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.82%

16.18%

+0.64%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.72%

18.35%

-0.63%

CGW vs. RSP - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than RSP's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

CGW vs. RSP - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.59%, more than RSP's 1.48% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
1.48%1.64%1.52%1.64%1.82%1.28%1.64%1.69%2.02%1.52%1.20%1.70%

Frequently Asked Questions


CGW and RSP have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGW has higher volatility (4.43%) compared to RSP (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs RSP's -59.92%.

On 10-year performance, RSP leads with 11.86% vs 9.49% for CGW. On fees, RSP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, RSP has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RSP has performed better with a 11.86% return vs 9.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RSP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.59%, compared with 1.48% for RSP.

CGW is categorized as Water Equities, while RSP is S&P 500. CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while RSP tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Index. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.20% for RSP.

RSP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 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 RSP

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