CGW vs FNGG
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. FNGG delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 82 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FNGG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $143M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 10.70% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 18 | |
| YTD Return | +2.76% | +33.72% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.56% | +33.40% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.89% | +61.59% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.48% | +4.44% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 58.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -91.3% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Direxion Shares ETF Trust | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Sep 29, 2021 |
CGW vs FNGG Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF (FNGG) is a ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year CGW returned +2.56% while FNGG returned +33.40%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.76% versus a gain of 33.72% for FNGG.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.89% per year against +61.59% for FNGG; over five years the annualized figures are +3.48% and +4.44% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.20% annualized vs +4.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNGG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 58.5% compared with 17.3% for CGW. 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 -91.3% for FNGG. 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 0.45. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FNGG 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 1.54% against 10.70% for FNGG.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FNGG share 0 holdings out of 80 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 FNGG?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FNGG 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 FNGG?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.56% vs +33.40% for FNGG, so FNGG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), CGW annualized +7.20% vs +4.44% for FNGG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FNGG?
FNGG has been the more volatile fund at 58.5% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FNGG -91.3%.
Should I hold both CGW and FNGG?
CGW and FNGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.45, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FNGG?
CGW and FNGG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 80 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FNGG?
CGW yields 1.54% while FNGG yields 10.70%, so FNGG 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.