CGW vs FFLV
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF
Quick Verdict
FFLV has a lower expense ratio. FFLV delivered stronger 1-year returns. FFLV offers more diversification with 105 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FFLV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.38% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 1.41% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 119 | |
| YTD Return | +3.48% | +18.17% | |
| 1Y Return | +3.64% | +30.12% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.47% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.84% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 12.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -16.7% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Fidelity Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Feb 9, 2024 |
CGW vs FFLV Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year CGW returned +3.64% while FFLV returned +30.12%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.48% versus a gain of 18.17% for FFLV.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 12.3% for FFLV. 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 -16.7% for FFLV. 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 0.67. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FFLV charges 0.38%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $38 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 1.41% for FFLV.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FFLV share 0 holdings out of 173 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 FFLV?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FFLV charges 0.38%. FFLV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $20 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FFLV?
Over the past year CGW returned +3.64% vs +30.12% for FFLV, so FFLV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), CGW annualized +7.25% vs +17.59% for FFLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FFLV?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 12.3% for FFLV. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FFLV -16.7%.
Should I hold both CGW and FFLV?
CGW and FFLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FFLV?
CGW and FFLV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 173 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FFLV?
CGW yields 1.52% while FFLV yields 1.41%, 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.