AOD vs CGW
Abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund vs Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. AOD delivered stronger 1-year returns. AOD offers more diversification with 85 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AOD | CGW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.16% | 0.58% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $1.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 11.72% | 1.52% | |
| Holdings | 86 | 82 | |
| YTD Return | +18.81% | +3.18% | |
| 1Y Return | +32.65% | +2.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.20% | +10.35% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.13% | +3.63% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.9% | 17.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -88.1% | -57.2% | |
| Fund Family | Aberdeen | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 26, 2007 | May 14, 2007 |
AOD vs CGW Performance
Abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund (AOD) is a ETF from Aberdeen and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year AOD returned +32.65% while CGW returned +2.35%. Year to date, AOD is up 18.81% versus a gain of 3.18% for CGW.
Over three years, AOD compounded at +23.20% per year against +10.35% for CGW; over five years the annualized figures are +11.13% and +3.63% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.24% annualized vs -4.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AOD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.9% 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 -88.1% for AOD 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AOD charges 1.16% per year while CGW charges 0.58%. On a $10,000 position that is $116 vs $58 annually, a gap of $58 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AOD currently yields 11.72% against 1.52% for CGW.
Holdings Overlap
AOD and CGW share 0 holdings out of 153 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, AOD or CGW?
AOD has an expense ratio of 1.16% while CGW charges 0.58%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $58 per year of difference.
Which performed better, AOD or CGW?
Over the past year AOD returned +32.65% vs +2.35% for CGW, so AOD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), AOD annualized -4.01% vs +7.24% for CGW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, AOD or CGW?
AOD has been the more volatile fund at 21.9% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: AOD -88.1% vs CGW -57.2%.
Should I hold both AOD and CGW?
AOD and CGW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between AOD and CGW?
AOD and CGW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 153 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, AOD or CGW?
AOD yields 11.72% while CGW yields 1.52%, so AOD 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.