CGW vs FTGS
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs First Trust Growth Strength ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. FTGS delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 82 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | FTGS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $1.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 0.08% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 51 | |
| YTD Return | +1.97% | +11.16% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.90% | +12.59% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.20% | +18.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.51% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 14.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -20.0% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Oct 25, 2022 |
CGW vs FTGS Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% while FTGS returned +12.59%. Year to date, CGW is up 1.97% versus a gain of 11.16% for FTGS.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.20% per year against +18.19% for FTGS. Across the full 4-year window we track, FTGS has the edge at +19.27% annualized vs +7.16%. 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 14.5% for FTGS. 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 -20.0% for FTGS. 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 0.68. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while FTGS charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $60 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 0.08% for FTGS.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and FTGS share 0 holdings out of 117 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 FTGS?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while FTGS charges 0.60%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or FTGS?
Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% vs +12.59% for FTGS, so FTGS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGW annualized +7.16% vs +19.27% for FTGS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or FTGS?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 14.5% for FTGS. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs FTGS -20.0%.
Should I hold both CGW and FTGS?
CGW and FTGS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.68, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and FTGS?
CGW and FTGS share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 117 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or FTGS?
CGW yields 1.54% while FTGS yields 0.08%, 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.