CGW vs FAAR
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. FAAR delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 68 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FAAR | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $191M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 9.19% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 6 | |
| YTD Return | +3.90% | +15.76% | |
| 1Y Return | +5.53% | +20.43% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.63% | +9.16% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.98% | +7.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 9.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -18.8% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Commodity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | May 18, 2016 |
CGW vs FAAR Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year CGW returned +5.53% while FAAR returned +20.43%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.90% versus a gain of 15.76% for FAAR.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.63% per year against +9.16% for FAAR; over five years the annualized figures are +3.98% and +7.39% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.28% annualized vs +3.48%. 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 9.1% for FAAR. 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 -18.8% for FAAR. 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 0.01. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FAAR charges 0.97%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $97 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 9.19% for FAAR.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FAAR share 0 holdings out of 69 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 FAAR?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FAAR charges 0.97%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $39 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FAAR?
Over the past year CGW returned +5.53% vs +20.43% for FAAR, so FAAR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CGW annualized +7.28% vs +3.48% for FAAR. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FAAR?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 9.1% for FAAR. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FAAR -18.8%.
Should I hold both CGW and FAAR?
CGW and FAAR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.01, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FAAR?
CGW and FAAR share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 69 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FAAR?
CGW yields 1.52% while FAAR yields 9.19%, so FAAR 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.