FIW vs. CGW

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FIW (First Trust Water ETF) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds - FIW tracks the ISE Clean Edge Water Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FIW returned 12.38%/yr vs 9.88%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FIW charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

FIW vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Water ETF (FIW) 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, FIW achieves a 0.42% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's 3.11% return. Over the past 10 years, FIW has outperformed CGW with an annualized return of 12.38%, while CGW has yielded a comparatively lower 9.88% annualized return.

FIW

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -0.27%
• 6M: -3.23%
• YTD: 0.42%
• 1Y: 1.34%
• 3Y*: 6.99%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: 12.38%
• ALL TIME*: 9.98%

CGW

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: -0.81%
• YTD: 3.11%
• 1Y: 5.96%
• 3Y*: 9.41%
• 5Y*: 4.33%
• 10Y*: 9.88%
• ALL TIME*: 7.26%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	$1.68M	$1.92M	$1.96M
FIW First Trust Water ETF	$5.33M	$5.43M	$6.04M

FIW vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FIW First Trust Water ETF	0.42%	7.20%	8.38%	20.35%	-15.70%	32.00%	21.15%	37.37%	-9.23%	24.69%
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	3.11%	18.10%	4.55%	15.50%	-22.00%	31.70%	15.41%	34.04%	-10.47%	27.08%

Correlation

The correlation between FIW and CGW is 0.83, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2007	0.85

The correlation between FIW and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

FIW vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FIW	CGW
Industrials	60.8%	45.5%
Healthcare	12.7%	-
Utilities	11.3%	44.6%
Technology	7.9%	1.4%
Basic Materials	5.0%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	2.6%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	1.9%
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

FIW vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FIW

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

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 21
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 20

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FIW vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Water ETF (FIW) 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.

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.

	FIW	CGW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.05	0.45	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.20	0.73	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.08	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.06	0.57	-0.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.15	1.29	-1.14

FIW vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FIW Sharpe Ratio is 0.05, which is lower than the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FIW 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.

Drawdowns

FIW vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FIW drawdown since its inception was -52.75%, smaller than the maximum CGW drawdown of -57.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FIW and CGW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FIW	CGW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.75%	-57.24%	+4.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.81%	-10.86%	-2.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.32%	-14.19%	-4.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.53%	-32.74%	+4.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.60%	-35.72%	-0.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.82%	-5.65%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.29%	-9.81%	+1.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.05%	4.84%	+1.21%

Volatility

FIW vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Water ETF (FIW) has a higher volatility of 5.47% compared to Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) at 4.02%. This indicates that FIW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FIW	CGW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.47%	4.02%	+1.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.58%	10.81%	+1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	13.88%	+2.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.49%	16.87%	+1.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.92%	17.61%	+2.31%

FIW vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FIW has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

FIW vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison

FIW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, less than CGW's 1.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	1.53%	1.58%	2.27%	1.55%	1.45%	1.59%	1.41%	1.48%	2.14%	1.71%	1.65%	1.67%
FIW First Trust Water ETF	0.72%	0.69%	0.69%	0.68%	0.67%	0.37%	0.56%	0.55%	0.73%	1.13%	0.51%	0.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FIW and CGW in my portfolio?

FIW and CGW have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FIW or CGW?

FIW has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to CGW (4.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FIW dropped -52.75% vs CGW's -57.24%.

Which ETF is better, FIW or CGW?

On 10-year performance, FIW leads with 12.38% vs 9.88% for CGW. On fees, FIW is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CGW has been the lower-risk option at 4.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FIW or CGW?

Over the 10-year period, FIW has performed better with a 12.38% return vs 9.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FIW or CGW?

FIW is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

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

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.72% for FIW.

What is the main difference between FIW and CGW?

FIW tracks ISE Clean Edge Water Index, while CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FIW and 0.57% for CGW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.45 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.