PHO vs. CGW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PHO (Invesco Water Resources ETF) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds from Invesco - PHO tracks the NASDAQ OMX US Water Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PHO returned 11.55%/yr vs 9.46%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PHO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

PHO vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) 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, PHO achieves a -5.40% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's -1.32% return. Over the past 10 years, PHO has outperformed CGW with an annualized return of 11.55%, while CGW has yielded a comparatively lower 9.46% annualized return.

PHO

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -1.41%
• YTD: -5.40%
• 6M: -7.93%
• 1Y: -3.67%
• 3Y*: 7.71%
• 5Y*: 5.22%
• 10Y*: 11.55%

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)

PHO vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PHO Invesco Water Resources ETF	-5.40%	7.62%	8.59%	18.85%	-14.86%	31.28%	20.83%	37.57%	-6.40%	23.55%
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%	27.08%

Correlation

The correlation between PHO 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	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2007	0.84

The correlation between PHO and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

PHO vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PHO	CGW
Industrials	56.3%	44.3%
Utilities	14.1%	46.6%
Technology	13.1%	1.1%
Basic Materials	8.4%	5.8%
Healthcare	8.2%	-
Financial Services	0.0%	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	1.6%
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

PHO vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PHO

PHO Risk / Return Rank: 6
PHO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PHO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

PHO vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) 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.

	PHO	CGW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.25	0.22	-0.47
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.25	0.41	-0.66
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.05	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.27	0.27	-0.54
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.69	0.73	-1.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PHO vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PHO Sharpe Ratio is -0.25, which is lower than the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PHO 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

	PHO	CGW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.25	0.22	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.27	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	0.54	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.34	0.34	0.00

Drawdowns

PHO vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PHO drawdown since its inception was -55.62%, roughly equal to the maximum CGW drawdown of -57.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PHO and CGW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PHO	CGW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.62%	-57.24%	+1.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.78%	-10.86%	-2.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.19%	-16.24%	-2.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.60%	-32.74%	+4.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.92%	-35.72%	+0.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.62%	-9.70%	-0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.18%	-9.84%	-0.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.31%	4.09%	+1.22%

Volatility

PHO vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) is 4.01%, while Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) has a volatility of 4.50%. This indicates that PHO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PHO	CGW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	4.50%	-0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.92%	10.17%	+0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.03%	13.28%	+1.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	16.82%	+1.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.45%	17.72%	+1.73%

PHO vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PHO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

PHO vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison

PHO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less 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%
PHO Invesco Water Resources ETF	0.58%	0.54%	0.45%	0.59%	0.49%	0.20%	0.39%	0.43%	0.46%	0.34%	0.47%	0.75%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PHO and CGW in my portfolio?

PHO 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.

Which is riskier, PHO or CGW?

CGW has higher volatility (4.50%) compared to PHO (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PHO dropped -55.62% vs CGW's -57.24%.

Which ETF is better, PHO or CGW?

On 10-year performance, PHO leads with 11.55% vs 9.46% for CGW. On fees, CGW is cheaper at 0.57% per year. On volatility, PHO has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PHO or CGW?

Over the 10-year period, PHO has performed better with a 11.55% return vs 9.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PHO or CGW?

CGW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PHO.

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

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.60%, compared with 0.58% for PHO.

What is the main difference between PHO and CGW?

PHO tracks NASDAQ OMX US Water Index, while CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PHO and 0.57% for CGW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.22 vs -0.25), 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.