BBEM vs CGW
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF vs Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF
Quick Verdict
BBEM has a lower expense ratio. BBEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. BBEM offers more diversification with 889 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BBEM | CGW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.58% | |
| AUM | $748M | $1.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.52% | 1.52% | |
| Holdings | 1,132 | 82 | |
| YTD Return | +15.27% | +3.73% | |
| 1Y Return | +32.50% | +5.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.67% | +10.56% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +4.07% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 17.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -17.4% | -57.2% | |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 10, 2023 | May 14, 2007 |
BBEM vs CGW Performance
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) is a ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year BBEM returned +32.50% while CGW returned +5.35%. Year to date, BBEM is up 15.27% versus a gain of 3.73% for CGW.
Over three years, BBEM compounded at +19.67% per year against +10.56% for CGW. Across the full 3-year window we track, BBEM has the edge at +19.32% annualized vs +7.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 15.1% for BBEM. 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 -17.4% for BBEM 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 0.54. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BBEM charges 0.15% per year while CGW charges 0.58%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $58 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BBEM currently yields 2.52% against 1.52% for CGW.
Holdings Overlap
BBEM and CGW share 4 holdings out of 953 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BBEM or CGW?
BBEM has an expense ratio of 0.15% while CGW charges 0.58%. BBEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $43 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BBEM or CGW?
Over the past year BBEM returned +32.50% vs +5.35% for CGW, so BBEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BBEM annualized +19.32% vs +7.27% for CGW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BBEM or CGW?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.1% for BBEM. Worst drawdown: BBEM -17.4% vs CGW -57.2%.
Should I hold both BBEM and CGW?
BBEM and CGW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.54, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BBEM and CGW?
BBEM and CGW share 4 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 953 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BBEM or CGW?
BBEM yields 2.52% while CGW yields 1.52%, so BBEM 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.