PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
PIO vs. CGW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

PIO vs. CGW

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

PIO (Invesco Global Water ETF) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds from Invesco - PIO tracks the NASDAQ OMX Global Water Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PIO returned 8.71%/yr vs 9.88%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. PIO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

PIO vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PIO achieves a 2.47% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's 3.11% return. Over the past 10 years, PIO has underperformed CGW with an annualized return of 8.71%, while CGW has yielded a comparatively higher 9.88% annualized return.

PIO

1D
0.36%
1M
-1.36%
6M
-2.92%
YTD
2.47%
1Y
3.32%
3Y*
7.98%
5Y*
2.43%
10Y*
8.71%
ALL TIME*
4.54%

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

PositionAvg. 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

PIO

Invesco Global Water ETF
$316.94K$288.77K$459.19K

PIO vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PIO
Invesco Global Water ETF		2.47%14.25%-0.44%22.19%-24.06%25.97%14.22%35.59%-9.71%26.52%
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 PIO and CGW is 0.85, 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.

0.85

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.84

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.88

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2007

0.87

The correlation between PIO and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

PIO vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
PIO
CGW

Industrials

53.0%
45.5%

Utilities

17.6%
44.6%

Healthcare

10.2%

-

Basic Materials

9.6%
6.0%

Technology

8.1%
1.4%

Consumer Cyclical

1.6%
0.5%

Financial Services

0.0%
0.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

1.9%

Real Estate

-

0.2%

Industrials

PIO
53.0%
CGW
45.5%

Utilities

PIO
17.6%
CGW
44.6%

Healthcare

PIO
10.2%
CGW

-

Basic Materials

PIO
9.6%
CGW
6.0%

Technology

PIO
8.1%
CGW
1.4%

Consumer Cyclical

PIO
1.6%
CGW
0.5%

Financial Services

PIO
0.0%
CGW
0.0%

Communication Services

PIO

-

CGW

-

Consumer Defensive

PIO

-

CGW

-

Energy

PIO

-

CGW
1.9%

Real Estate

PIO

-

CGW
0.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco Global Water ETF

Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF

Often compared with PIO:
PIO vs. PHOPIO vs. FIWPIO vs. AQWAPIO vs. COMPPIO vs. VOOPIO vs. ICLNPIO vs. IVV
Often compared with CGW:
CGW vs. PHOCGW vs. FIWCGW vs. AQWACGW vs. SPYCGW vs. GWRSCGW vs. DGTCGW vs. VTI

Return for Risk

PIO vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
PIO
PIO Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
PIO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PIO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
PIO Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
PIO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
PIO Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
Martin Ratio Rank
CGW
CGW Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PIO vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

PIOCGWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.20
0.45

-0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.39
0.73

-0.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.08

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.23

0.57

-0.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.54

1.29

-0.75

PIO vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PIO Sharpe Ratio is 0.20, which is lower than the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PIO 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

PIO vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PIO drawdown since its inception was -64.88%, which is greater than CGW's maximum drawdown of -57.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PIO and CGW.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

PIOCGWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.88%

-57.24%

-7.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.14%

-10.86%

-2.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.08%

-14.19%

-2.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.27%

-32.74%

-1.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.76%

-35.72%

-0.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.96%

-5.65%

-1.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.36%

-9.81%

-5.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.56%

4.84%

+0.72%

Volatility

PIO vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Global Water ETF (PIO) has a higher volatility of 4.33% compared to Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) at 4.02%. This indicates that PIO'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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

PIOCGWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.33%

4.02%

+0.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.71%

10.81%

+1.90%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.35%

13.88%

+1.47%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.74%

16.87%

+0.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.14%

17.61%

+0.53%

PIO vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PIO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

PIO vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison

PIO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than CGW's 1.53% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
PIO
Invesco Global Water ETF		0.90%1.04%0.78%0.84%1.02%1.19%0.88%1.20%2.00%1.00%1.45%1.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

PIO and CGW have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PIO has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to CGW (4.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PIO dropped -64.88% vs CGW's -57.24%.

On 10-year performance, CGW leads with 9.88% vs 8.71% for PIO. On fees, CGW is cheaper at 0.57% 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.

Over the 10-year period, CGW has performed better with a 9.88% return vs 8.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CGW is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PIO.

CGW has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 0.90% for PIO.

PIO tracks NASDAQ OMX Global Water Index, while CGW tracks S&P Global Water Index. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for PIO and 0.57% for CGW.

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.45 vs 0.20), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PIO and CGW

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