PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CWW.TO vs. CGW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CWW.TO vs. CGW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds - CWW.TO tracks the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO returned 8.42%/yr vs 10.25%/yr for CGW. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWW.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CWW.TO is traded in CAD, while CGW is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CGW values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWW.TO achieves a 0.67% return, which is significantly higher than CGW's -0.06% return. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO has underperformed CGW with an annualized return of 8.42%, while CGW has yielded a comparatively higher 10.25% annualized return.

CWW.TO

1D
0.76%
1M
-0.37%
YTD
0.67%
6M
-4.32%
1Y
3.23%
3Y*
6.26%
5Y*
4.32%
10Y*
8.42%

CGW

1D
0.10%
1M
-0.61%
YTD
-0.06%
6M
-2.55%
1Y
4.29%
3Y*
10.59%
5Y*
7.57%
10Y*
10.25%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		0.67%10.11%2.99%11.71%-16.52%27.08%12.93%26.85%-2.69%17.91%
CGW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF		-0.06%12.68%13.54%12.96%-16.44%30.51%13.46%27.45%-2.88%18.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CWW.TO and CGW is 0.81, 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

0.81

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

0.81

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

0.85

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2009

0.74

The correlation between CWW.TO and CGW shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (all time) to 0.85 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CWW.TO
CGW

Utilities

46.7%
46.6%

Industrials

44.2%
44.3%

Basic Materials

5.8%
5.8%

Energy

1.6%
1.6%

Technology

1.1%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
0.5%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.2%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.0%

Healthcare

-

-

Utilities

CWW.TO
46.7%
CGW
46.6%

Industrials

CWW.TO
44.2%
CGW
44.3%

Basic Materials

CWW.TO
5.8%
CGW
5.8%

Energy

CWW.TO
1.6%
CGW
1.6%

Technology

CWW.TO
1.1%
CGW
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CWW.TO
0.5%
CGW
0.5%

Real Estate

CWW.TO
0.2%
CGW
0.2%

Communication Services

CWW.TO

-

CGW

-

Consumer Defensive

CWW.TO

-

CGW

-

Financial Services

CWW.TO

-

CGW
0.0%

Healthcare

CWW.TO

-

CGW

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Water Index ETF

Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF

Often compared with CWW.TO:
CWW.TO vs. FIWCWW.TO vs. COW.TOCWW.TO vs. CIF.TOCWW.TO vs. KBWBCWW.TO vs. VFV.TOCWW.TO vs. XAW.TOCWW.TO vs. ENFR
Often compared with CGW:
CGW vs. PHOCGW vs. FIWCGW vs. PIOCGW vs. AQWACGW vs. SPYCGW vs. GWRSCGW vs. DGT

Return for Risk

CWW.TO vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CWW.TO
CWW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank
CGW
CGW Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 1010
Omega Ratio Rank
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
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.

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW). 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.

CWW.TOCGWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.23
0.33

-0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.44
0.55

-0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.07

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.32

0.41

-0.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.79

1.08

-0.29

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is comparable to the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWW.TO and CGW, 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

CWW.TOCGWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

0.33

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.53

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.66

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.79

-0.41

Drawdowns

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWW.TO drawdown since its inception was -46.54%, which is greater than CGW's maximum drawdown of -29.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWW.TO and CGW.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CWW.TOCGWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.54%

-29.55%

-16.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.24%

-10.45%

+0.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.77%

-12.11%

-7.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.05%

-29.22%

-1.83%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.05%

-29.55%

-1.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.12%

-8.28%

+0.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.47%

-4.67%

-4.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.11%

3.99%

+0.12%

Volatility

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) have volatilities of 4.23% and 4.44%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CWW.TOCGWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.23%

4.44%

-0.21%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.85%

10.29%

+0.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.83%

13.13%

+0.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.40%

14.39%

+1.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.52%

15.57%

+0.95%

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWW.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWW.TO vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison

CWW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than CGW's 1.60% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF		1.60%1.58%2.27%1.55%1.45%1.59%1.41%1.48%2.14%1.71%1.65%1.67%
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		1.56%1.34%1.05%1.17%1.28%2.62%1.11%1.24%2.95%1.41%1.60%1.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

CWW.TO and CGW have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CGW is cheaper at 0.57% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CGW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for CWW.TO.

CWW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CWW.TO and 0.57% for CGW.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWW.TO and CGW

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