EBLU vs. CGW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EBLU (Ecofin Global Water ESG Fund) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds - EBLU tracks the Ecofin Water ESG Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EBLU returned 3.93%/yr vs 4.58%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EBLU charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

EBLU vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EBLU achieves a -2.16% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's -1.32% return.

EBLU

• 1D: 0.97%
• 1M: -4.64%
• YTD: -2.16%
• 6M: -3.83%
• 1Y: -0.69%
• 3Y*: 9.65%
• 5Y*: 3.93%
• 10Y*: —

CGW

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -2.55%
• YTD: -1.32%
• 6M: -2.18%
• 1Y: 2.96%
• 3Y*: 9.32%
• 5Y*: 4.58%
• 10Y*: 9.46%

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

EBLU vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EBLU Ecofin Global Water ESG Fund	-2.16%	11.82%	8.54%	20.95%	-25.99%	28.93%	15.74%	38.72%	-12.80%	20.21%
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	-1.32%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-22.00%	31.70%	15.41%	34.04%	-10.47%	20.47%

Correlation

The correlation between EBLU and CGW is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2017	0.82

The correlation between EBLU and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

EBLU vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EBLU	CGW
Industrials	70.6%	44.3%
Utilities	20.1%	46.6%
Technology	4.0%	1.1%
Basic Materials	4.0%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	-
Energy	1.1%	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	0.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

EBLU vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EBLU

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 11
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 10
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

EBLU vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ecofin Global Water ESG Fund (EBLU) 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.

	EBLU	CGW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	0.22	-0.27
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.03	0.41	-0.37
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.05	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.06	0.27	-0.33
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.14	0.73	-0.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EBLU vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EBLU Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EBLU 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EBLU	CGW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05	0.22	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23	0.27	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.34	+0.16

Drawdowns

EBLU vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EBLU drawdown since its inception was -37.58%, smaller than the maximum CGW drawdown of -57.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EBLU and CGW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EBLU	CGW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.58%	-57.24%	+19.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.17%	-10.86%	-2.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.42%	-16.24%	+0.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.36%	-32.74%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.80%	-9.70%	-2.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.14%	-9.84%	+1.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.41%	4.09%	+1.32%

Volatility

EBLU vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

Ecofin Global Water ESG Fund (EBLU) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) have volatilities of 4.47% and 4.50%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	EBLU	CGW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	4.50%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.46%	10.17%	+1.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.44%	13.28%	+1.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.33%	16.82%	+0.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.97%	17.72%	+1.25%

EBLU vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EBLU has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

EBLU vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison

EBLU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.38%, more than CGW's 1.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
EBLU Ecofin Global Water ESG Fund	3.38%	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 EBLU and CGW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, EBLU and CGW 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, EBLU or CGW?

CGW has higher volatility (4.50%) compared to EBLU (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EBLU dropped -37.58% vs CGW's -57.24%.

Which ETF is better, EBLU or CGW?

On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 4.58% vs 3.93% for EBLU. On fees, EBLU is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EBLU or CGW?

Over the 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 4.58% return vs 3.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EBLU or CGW?

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

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

EBLU has the higher dividend yield at 3.38%, compared with 1.60% for CGW.

What is the main difference between EBLU and CGW?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.22 vs -0.05), 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.