PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CWW.TO vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWW.TO is a Water Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO returned 8.42%/yr vs 12.77%/yr for ENFR. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWW.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CWW.TO is traded in CAD, while ENFR is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ENFR 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 lower than ENFR's 26.19% return. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO has underperformed ENFR with an annualized return of 8.42%, while ENFR has yielded a comparatively higher 12.77% 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%

ENFR

1D
0.52%
1M
0.97%
YTD
26.19%
6M
23.93%
1Y
27.02%
3Y*
29.48%
5Y*
23.34%
10Y*
12.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - 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%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		26.19%1.02%54.38%13.08%25.86%38.71%-25.43%15.62%-11.77%-6.55%

Correlation

The correlation between CWW.TO and ENFR is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.07

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

0.20

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

0.22

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

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2013

0.30

Over the past year, the correlation between CWW.TO and ENFR has dropped to 0.07 - well below their long-term average of 0.30, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CWW.TO
ENFR

Utilities

46.7%
1.0%

Industrials

44.2%
3.4%

Basic Materials

5.8%

-

Energy

1.6%
98.8%

Technology

1.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%

-

Real Estate

0.2%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

-

Utilities

CWW.TO
46.7%
ENFR
1.0%

Industrials

CWW.TO
44.2%
ENFR
3.4%

Basic Materials

CWW.TO
5.8%
ENFR

-

Energy

CWW.TO
1.6%
ENFR
98.8%

Technology

CWW.TO
1.1%
ENFR

-

Consumer Cyclical

CWW.TO
0.5%
ENFR

-

Real Estate

CWW.TO
0.2%
ENFR

-

Communication Services

CWW.TO

-

ENFR

-

Consumer Defensive

CWW.TO

-

ENFR

-

Financial Services

CWW.TO

-

ENFR
0.2%

Healthcare

CWW.TO

-

ENFR

-

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

Alerian Energy Infrastructure 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. VCR
Often compared with ENFR:
ENFR vs. AMLPENFR vs. MLPXENFR vs. TPYPENFR vs. EMLPENFR vs. UMIENFR vs. MPLXENFR vs. ATMP

Return for Risk

CWW.TO vs. ENFR — 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
ENFR
ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
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. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). 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.TOENFRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.23
1.83

-1.60

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.44
2.49

-2.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.31

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.32

3.10

-2.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.79

8.25

-7.47

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. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is lower than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWW.TO and ENFR, 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.TOENFRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

1.83

-1.60

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

1.39

-1.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.58

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.50

-0.11

Drawdowns

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWW.TO drawdown since its inception was -46.54%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -59.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWW.TO and ENFR.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CWW.TOENFRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.54%

-59.45%

+12.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.24%

-8.75%

-1.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.77%

-16.41%

-3.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.05%

-16.71%

-14.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.05%

-59.45%

+28.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.12%

-4.20%

-3.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.47%

-9.47%

0.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.11%

3.29%

+0.82%

Volatility

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) is 4.23%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 6.51%. This indicates that CWW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CWW.TOENFRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.23%

6.51%

-2.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.85%

11.87%

-1.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.83%

14.85%

-1.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.40%

16.92%

-1.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.52%

22.14%

-5.62%

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWW.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWW.TO vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

CWW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than ENFR's 4.03% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		4.03%4.77%4.41%5.48%5.23%7.86%7.57%5.81%3.98%2.98%3.31%3.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

CWW.TO and ENFR have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for CWW.TO.

CWW.TO is categorized as Water Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. CWW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CWW.TO and 0.35% for ENFR.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWW.TO and ENFR

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