CGW vs GLOW
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. GLOW delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 82 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | GLOW | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.72% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $68M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.41% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 16 | |
| YTD Return | +2.86% | +15.03% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.90% | +23.96% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.68% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.54% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 10.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -15.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Victory Capital Management Inc. | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Jun 21, 2024 |
CGW vs GLOW Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) is a ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc.. Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% while GLOW returned +23.96%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.86% versus a gain of 15.03% for GLOW.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 10.7% for GLOW. 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 -15.6% for GLOW. 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 0.51. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while GLOW charges 0.72%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $72 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 1.41% for GLOW.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and GLOW share 0 holdings out of 81 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 GLOW?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while GLOW charges 0.72%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $14 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or GLOW?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% vs +23.96% for GLOW, so GLOW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGW annualized +7.22% vs +19.93% for GLOW. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or GLOW?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 10.7% for GLOW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs GLOW -15.6%.
Should I hold both CGW and GLOW?
CGW and GLOW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.51, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and GLOW?
CGW and GLOW share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 81 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or GLOW?
CGW yields 1.54% while GLOW yields 1.41%, 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.