CGW vs. VTI
CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) and VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGW is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water Index, while VTI is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Total Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGW returned 9.98%/yr vs 15.14%/yr for VTI. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGW charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for VTI.
Performance
CGW vs. VTI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGW achieves a -0.07% return, which is significantly lower than VTI's 8.82% return. Over the past 10 years, CGW has underperformed VTI with an annualized return of 9.98%, while VTI has yielded a comparatively higher 15.14% 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%
VTI
- 1D
- -1.39%
- 1M
- -0.84%
- YTD
- 8.82%
- 6M
- 7.71%
- 1Y
- 24.22%
- 3Y*
- 20.62%
- 5Y*
- 11.90%
- 10Y*
- 15.14%
CGW vs. VTI - 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% |
VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF | 8.82% | 17.10% | 23.81% | 26.05% | -19.52% | 25.68% | 21.08% | 30.67% | -5.23% | 21.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGW and VTI is 0.60, 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 | 0.60 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2007 | 0.80 |
The correlation between CGW and VTI shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CGW vs. VTI - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CGW
VTI
Utilities
Industrials
Basic Materials
Energy
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Real Estate
Financial Services
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Utilities
CGW
VTI
Industrials
CGW
VTI
Basic Materials
CGW
VTI
Energy
CGW
VTI
Technology
CGW
VTI
Consumer Cyclical
CGW
VTI
Real Estate
CGW
VTI
Financial Services
CGW
VTI
Communication Services
CGW
-
VTI
Consumer Defensive
CGW
-
VTI
Healthcare
CGW
-
VTI
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. VTI — Risk / Return Rank
CGW
VTI
CGW vs. VTI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI). 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 | VTI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 1.34 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.38 | 2.73 | -2.35 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.90 | 12.14 | -11.24 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGW vs. VTI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGW drawdown since its inception was -57.24%, roughly equal to the maximum VTI drawdown of -55.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGW and VTI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGW | VTI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -57.24% | -55.45% | -1.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.86% | -8.92% | -1.94% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.24% | -19.30% | +3.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.74% | -25.36% | -7.38% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.72% | -35.00% | -0.72% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.55% | -2.85% | -5.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.83% | -8.01% | -1.82% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.54% | 2.00% | +2.54% |
Volatility
CGW vs. VTI - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is 4.01%, while Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) has a volatility of 4.95%. This indicates that CGW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VTI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGW | VTI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.01% | 4.95% | -0.94% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.51% | 10.05% | +0.46% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.58% | 12.83% | +0.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 17.51% | -0.69% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.63% | 18.32% | -0.69% |
CGW vs. VTI - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGW has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than VTI's 0.03% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGW vs. VTI - Dividend Comparison
CGW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, more than VTI's 1.04% 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% |
VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF | 1.04% | 1.12% | 1.27% | 1.44% | 1.66% | 1.21% | 1.42% | 1.78% | 2.04% | 1.71% | 1.92% | 1.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGW and VTI have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
VTI has higher volatility (4.95%) compared to CGW (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGW dropped -57.24% vs VTI's -55.45%.
On 10-year performance, VTI leads with 15.14% vs 9.98% for CGW. On fees, VTI is cheaper at 0.03% 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.
Over the 10-year period, VTI has performed better with a 15.14% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VTI is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.
CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.58%, compared with 1.04% for VTI.
CGW is categorized as Water Equities, while VTI is Large Cap Blend Equities. CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index, while VTI tracks CRSP US Total Market Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for CGW and 0.03% for VTI.
VTI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 0.30), 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.
Find the right allocation for CGW and VTI
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