CGW vs FQAL
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Fidelity Quality Factor ETF
Quick Verdict
FQAL has a lower expense ratio. FQAL delivered stronger 1-year returns. FQAL offers more diversification with 130 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FQAL | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.15% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $1.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.15% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 130 | |
| YTD Return | +2.76% | +13.19% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.56% | +18.42% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.89% | +20.31% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.48% | +11.64% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -34.1% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Fidelity Investments (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Sep 12, 2016 |
CGW vs FQAL Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.56% while FQAL returned +18.42%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.76% versus a gain of 13.19% for FQAL.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.89% per year against +20.31% for FQAL; over five years the annualized figures are +3.48% and +11.64% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FQAL has the edge at +13.80% annualized vs +7.20%. 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 15.0% for FQAL. 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 -34.1% for FQAL. 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 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FQAL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $15 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 1.15% for FQAL.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FQAL share 1 holdings out of 191 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CGW | Weight in FQAL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECL | 4.12% | 0.23% | 3.89% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or FQAL?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FQAL charges 0.15%. FQAL is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $43 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FQAL?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.56% vs +18.42% for FQAL, so FQAL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CGW annualized +7.20% vs +13.80% for FQAL. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FQAL?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.0% for FQAL. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FQAL -34.1%.
Should I hold both CGW and FQAL?
CGW and FQAL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FQAL?
CGW and FQAL share 1 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 191 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FQAL?
CGW yields 1.54% while FQAL yields 1.15%, 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.