TBLU vs. CGW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

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 4.24%/yr vs 5.08%/yr for CGW. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TBLU charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for CGW.

Performance

TBLU vs. CGW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU) 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, TBLU achieves a -0.84% return, which is significantly lower than CGW's -0.07% return.

TBLU

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: -0.84%
• 6M: -2.19%
• 1Y: -0.84%
• 3Y*: 9.69%
• 5Y*: 4.24%
• 10Y*: —

CGW

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: -0.07%
• 6M: -0.77%
• 1Y: 4.10%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 5.08%
• 10Y*: 9.98%

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

TBLU vs. CGW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TBLU Tortoise Global Water Fund	-0.84%	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	-0.07%	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 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
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 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

TBLU vs. CGW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TBLU	CGW
Industrials	65.7%	44.6%
Utilities	24.1%	45.8%
Basic Materials	7.4%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.7%	0.5%
Technology	0.6%	1.2%
Energy	0.5%	1.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

TBLU vs. CGW — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBLU

TBLU Risk / Return Rank: 8
TBLU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TBLU Martin Ratio Rank: 8

CGW

CGW Risk / Return Rank: 12
CGW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Omega Ratio Rank: 12
CGW Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
CGW Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.06	0.31	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.02	0.52	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.06	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.06	0.38	-0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.14	0.90	-1.04

TBLU vs. CGW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBLU Sharpe Ratio is -0.06, which is lower than the CGW Sharpe Ratio of 0.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBLU 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBLU	CGW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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%	-16.24%	+0.82%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.61%	-8.55%	-2.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.16%	-9.83%	+1.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.98%	4.54%	+1.44%

Volatility

TBLU vs. CGW - Volatility Comparison

Tortoise Global Water Fund (TBLU) has a higher volatility of 4.36% compared to Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) at 4.01%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	TBLU	CGW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	4.01%	+0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.78%	10.51%	+1.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.73%	13.58%	+1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.35%	16.82%	+0.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.95%	17.63%	+1.32%

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 3.33%, more than CGW's 1.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGW Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF	1.58%	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	3.33%	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

Can I hold both TBLU and CGW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, TBLU and CGW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, TBLU or CGW?

TBLU has higher volatility (4.36%) compared to CGW (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBLU dropped -37.58% vs CGW's -57.24%.

Which ETF is better, TBLU or CGW?

On 5-year performance, CGW leads with 5.08% vs 4.24% for TBLU. On fees, TBLU is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, CGW 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, TBLU or CGW?

Over the 5-year period, CGW has performed better with a 5.08% return vs 4.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBLU or CGW?

TBLU is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for CGW.

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

TBLU has the higher dividend yield at 3.33%, compared with 1.58% for CGW.

What is the main difference between TBLU and 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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.06), 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.