CGW vs FMN
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. FMN delivered stronger 1-year returns. FMN offers more diversification with 150 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FMN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.75% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 4.43% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 150 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +1.66% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +8.44% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +7.15% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | -3.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 14.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -53.4% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Federated Hermes | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Dec 20, 2002 |
CGW vs FMN Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund (FMN) is a ETF from Federated Hermes. Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while FMN returned +8.44%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 1.66% for FMN.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +7.15% for FMN; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and -3.05% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.18% annualized vs -0.28%. 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 14.7% for FMN. 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 -53.4% for FMN. 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 0.39. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FMN charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $75 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 4.43% for FMN.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FMN share 0 holdings out of 152 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 FMN?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FMN charges 0.75%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FMN?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +8.44% for FMN, so FMN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs -0.28% for FMN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FMN?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 14.7% for FMN. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FMN -53.4%.
Should I hold both CGW and FMN?
CGW and FMN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.39, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FMN?
CGW and FMN share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 152 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FMN?
CGW yields 1.54% while FMN yields 4.43%, so FMN 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.