CGW vs FLGV
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Franklin US Treasury Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
FLGV has a lower expense ratio. CGW delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 82 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FLGV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.09% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $1.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 4.23% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 51 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | -0.31% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +1.85% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +3.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | -0.58% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 5.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -18.4% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Jun 9, 2020 |
CGW vs FLGV Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Franklin US Treasury Bond ETF (FLGV) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while FLGV returned +1.85%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a loss of 0.31% for FLGV.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +3.66% for FLGV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and -0.58% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.18% annualized vs -0.88%. 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 5.0% for FLGV. 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 -18.4% for FLGV. 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 0.61. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FLGV charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $9 annually, a gap of $49 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 4.23% for FLGV.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FLGV share 0 holdings out of 68 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 FLGV?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FLGV charges 0.09%. FLGV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $49 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FLGV?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +1.85% for FLGV, so CGW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs -0.88% for FLGV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FLGV?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 5.0% for FLGV. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FLGV -18.4%.
Should I hold both CGW and FLGV?
CGW and FLGV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.61, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FLGV?
CGW and FLGV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 68 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FLGV?
CGW yields 1.54% while FLGV yields 4.23%, so FLGV 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.