TBLU vs. CGW
TBLU (Tortoise Global Water Fund) and CGW (Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF) are both Water Equities funds - TBLU tracks the Tortoise Global Water ESG Net Total Return Index while CGW tracks the S&P Global Water Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TBLU returned 3.59%/yr vs 4.33%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. TBLU charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.
Performance
TBLU vs. CGW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TBLU achieves a 2.00% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's 3.11% return.
TBLU
- 1D
- -0.27%
- 1M
- -1.11%
- 6M
- -3.93%
- YTD
- 2.00%
- 1Y
- -0.10%
- 3Y*
- 9.02%
- 5Y*
- 3.59%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 9.78%
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%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.68M | $1.92M | $1.96M | |
| $60.50K | $60.70K | $110.96K |
TBLU vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TBLU Tortoise Global Water Fund | 2.00% | 11.82% | 8.54% | 20.95% | -25.99% | 28.93% | 15.74% | 38.72% | -12.80% | 20.81% |
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% | 20.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between TBLU and CGW is 0.89, 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. | 0.89 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.88 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2017 | 0.82 |
The correlation between TBLU and CGW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
TBLU vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TBLU
CGW
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
-
Consumer Cyclical
Technology
Energy
Communication Services
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
Industrials
TBLU
CGW
Utilities
TBLU
CGW
Basic Materials
TBLU
CGW
Consumer Defensive
TBLU
CGW
-
Consumer Cyclical
TBLU
CGW
Technology
TBLU
CGW
Energy
TBLU
CGW
Communication Services
TBLU
-
CGW
-
Financial Services
TBLU
-
CGW
Healthcare
TBLU
-
CGW
-
Real Estate
TBLU
-
CGW
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
TBLU vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank
TBLU
CGW
TBLU vs. CGW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU) 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.
| TBLU | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.08 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.02 | 0.57 | -0.59 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.03 | 1.29 | -1.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TBLU vs. CGW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TBLU 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 TBLU and CGW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TBLU | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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% | -14.19% | -1.23% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.05% | -5.65% | -2.40% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.16% | -9.81% | +1.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.53% | 4.84% | +1.69% |
Volatility
TBLU vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison
Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU) has a higher volatility of 4.54% compared to Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) at 4.02%. This indicates that TBLU'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
| TBLU | CGW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.54% | 4.02% | +0.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.89% | 10.81% | +1.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.17% | 13.88% | +1.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.42% | 16.87% | +0.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.91% | 17.61% | +1.30% |
TBLU vs. CGW - Expense Ratio Comparison
TBLU has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CGW's 0.57% expense ratio.
Dividends
TBLU vs. CGW - Dividend Comparison
TBLU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.47%, more 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% |
TBLU Tortoise Global Water Fund | 3.47% | 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
TBLU and CGW have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TBLU has higher volatility (4.54%) compared to CGW (4.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBLU dropped -37.58% vs CGW's -57.24%.
On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 4.33% vs 3.59% for TBLU. On fees, TBLU is cheaper at 0.40% 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 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 4.33% return vs 3.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
TBLU is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.
TBLU has the higher dividend yield at 3.47%, compared with 1.53% for CGW.
TBLU tracks Tortoise Global Water ESG Net Total Return 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 TBLU and 0.57% for CGW.
CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.45 vs -0.01), 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.
Find the right allocation for TBLU 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