CGW vs. TBLU

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and TBLU (Tortoise Global Water Fund) are both Water Equities funds - CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index while TBLU tracks the Tortoise Global Water ESG Net Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGW returned 5.08%/yr vs 4.24%/yr for TBLU. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for TBLU.

Performance

CGW vs. TBLU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU). 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 TBLU's -0.84% 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%

TBLU

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: -0.84%
• 6M: -2.19%
• 1Y: -0.84%
• 3Y*: 9.69%
• 5Y*: 4.24%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGW vs. TBLU - 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%	20.88%
TBLU Tortoise Global Water Fund	-0.84%	11.82%	8.54%	20.95%	-25.99%	28.93%	15.74%	38.72%	-12.80%	20.81%

Correlation

The correlation between CGW and TBLU is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2017	0.82

The correlation between CGW and TBLU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGW vs. TBLU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGW	TBLU
Utilities	45.8%	24.1%
Industrials	44.6%	65.7%
Basic Materials	6.0%	7.4%
Energy	1.7%	0.5%
Technology	1.2%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	0.5%	0.7%
Real Estate	0.2%	-
Financial Services	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	1.0%
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

CGW vs. TBLU — 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

TBLU

TBLU Risk / Return Rank: 8
TBLU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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. TBLU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU). 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	TBLU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.31	-0.06	+0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.52	0.02	+0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.00	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	-0.06	+0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.90	-0.14	+1.04

CGW vs. TBLU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGW Sharpe Ratio is 0.31, which is higher than the TBLU Sharpe Ratio of -0.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGW and TBLU, 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. TBLU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, which is greater than TBLU's maximum drawdown of -37.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and TBLU.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGW	TBLU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.24%	-37.58%	-19.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.86%	-13.17%	+2.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.24%	-15.42%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.74%	-35.36%	+2.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.55%	-10.61%	+2.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.83%	-8.16%	-1.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.54%	5.98%	-1.44%

Volatility

CGW vs. TBLU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.01%, while Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU) has a volatility of 4.36%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TBLU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGW	TBLU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	4.36%	-0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.51%	11.78%	-1.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.58%	14.73%	-1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	17.35%	-0.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.63%	18.95%	-1.32%

CGW vs. TBLU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than TBLU's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGW vs. TBLU - Dividend Comparison

CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, less than TBLU's 3.33% 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%
TBLU Tortoise Global Water Fund	3.33%	3.31%	1.34%	1.46%	1.64%	1.55%	1.42%	1.58%	1.35%	1.32%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGW and TBLU in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CGW and TBLU move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CGW or TBLU?

TBLU has higher volatility (4.36%) compared to CGW (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs TBLU's -37.58%.

Which ETF is better, CGW or TBLU?

On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 5.08% vs 4.24% for TBLU. On fees, TBLU is cheaper at 0.40% 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 TBLU?

Over the 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 5.08% return vs 4.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGW or TBLU?

TBLU is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

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

TBLU has the higher dividend yield at 3.33%, compared with 1.58% for CGW.

What is the main difference between CGW and TBLU?

CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while TBLU tracks Tortoise Global Water ESG Net Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Tortoise. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.40% for TBLU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.06), 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.