ACES vs CGW
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. ACES delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 68 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | CGW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.58% | |
| AUM | $109M | $1.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 1.52% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 82 | |
| YTD Return | -3.74% | +3.90% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.63% | +5.53% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -7.82% | +10.63% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -13.74% | +3.98% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.4% | 17.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -57.2% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | May 14, 2007 |
ACES vs CGW Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ACES returned +20.63% while CGW returned +5.53%. Year to date, ACES is down 3.74% versus a gain of 3.90% for CGW.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -7.82% per year against +10.63% for CGW; over five years the annualized figures are -13.74% and +3.98% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.28% annualized vs +3.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.4% compared with 17.3% for CGW. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -57.2% for CGW. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while CGW charges 0.58%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $58 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 1.52% for CGW.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and CGW share 0 holdings out of 105 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or CGW?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while CGW charges 0.58%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $3 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or CGW?
Over the past year ACES returned +20.63% vs +5.53% for CGW, so ACES leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.81% vs +7.28% for CGW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or CGW?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.4% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs CGW -57.2%.
Should I hold both ACES and CGW?
ACES and CGW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and CGW?
ACES and CGW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 105 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or CGW?
ACES yields 1.22% while CGW yields 1.52%, so CGW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.