PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) and Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

GLGG.L is traded in GBp, while AQWG.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the AQWG.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLGG.L achieves a 7.41% return, which is significantly higher than AQWG.L's 4.18% return.


GLGG.L

1D
1.08%
1M
4.58%
YTD
7.41%
6M
7.26%
1Y
14.94%
3Y*
10.86%
5Y*
7.31%
10Y*

AQWG.L

1D
0.00%
1M
3.89%
YTD
4.18%
6M
4.00%
1Y
7.60%
3Y*
9.85%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
GLGG.L
L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF
7.41%7.81%5.74%14.58%-7.49%1.29%
AQWG.L
Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF
4.18%5.17%7.79%18.26%-9.91%2.42%

Correlation

The correlation between GLGG.L and AQWG.L is 0.83, 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

0.83

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

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2021

0.83

The correlation between GLGG.L and AQWG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLGG.L
GLGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
GLGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank

AQWG.L
AQWG.L Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
AQWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AQWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
AQWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
AQWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
AQWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
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.

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) and Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L). 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.


GLGG.LAQWG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.70

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.11

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.28

0.68

+0.60

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.02

1.60

+1.42

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is higher than the AQWG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLGG.L and AQWG.L, 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...

Drawdowns

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLGG.L drawdown since its inception was -35.59%, which is greater than AQWG.L's maximum drawdown of -21.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLGG.L and AQWG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GLGG.LAQWG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.59%

-21.32%

-14.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.62%

-11.23%

-0.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.97%

-17.73%

-2.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.72%

-5.00%

+1.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.03%

-6.48%

-2.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.94%

4.77%

+0.17%

Volatility

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) and Global X Clean Water UCITS ETF (AQWG.L) have volatilities of 3.91% and 4.05%, 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


GLGG.LAQWG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.91%

4.05%

-0.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.44%

10.53%

+0.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.96%

13.41%

+0.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

14.97%

+5.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.93%

14.97%

+6.96%

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLGG.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than AQWG.L's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

GLGG.L vs. AQWG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLGG.L nor AQWG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


GLGG.L and AQWG.L 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.

On fees, GLGG.L is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GLGG.L is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for AQWG.L.

Both ETFs track S&P Global Water TR. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GLGG.L and 0.50% for AQWG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLGG.L and AQWG.L

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