CGW vs ETW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. ETW delivered stronger 1-year returns. ETW offers more diversification with 291 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | ETW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 1.10% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $936M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 7.47% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 291 | |
| YTD Return | +1.97% | +12.47% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.90% | +21.21% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.20% | +17.50% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.51% | +6.48% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 16.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -72.8% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Eaton Vance | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Sep 30, 2005 |
CGW vs ETW Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (ETW) is a ETF from Eaton Vance. Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% while ETW returned +21.21%. Year to date, CGW is up 1.97% versus a gain of 12.47% for ETW.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.20% per year against +17.50% for ETW; over five years the annualized figures are +3.51% and +6.48% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.16% annualized vs -1.06%. 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 16.9% for ETW. 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 -57.2% for CGW and -72.8% for ETW. 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 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while ETW charges 1.10%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $110 annually, a gap of $52 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 7.47% for ETW.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and ETW share 0 holdings out of 326 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, CGW or ETW?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while ETW charges 1.10%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $52 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or ETW?
Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% vs +21.21% for ETW, so ETW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.16% vs -1.06% for ETW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or ETW?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 16.9% for ETW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs ETW -72.8%.
Should I hold both CGW and ETW?
CGW and ETW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and ETW?
CGW and ETW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 326 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or ETW?
CGW yields 1.54% while ETW yields 7.47%, so ETW 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.