CGW vs GTOS
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Invesco Short Duration Total Return Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
GTOS has a lower expense ratio. CGW delivered stronger 1-year returns. GTOS offers more diversification with 703 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | GTOS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.30% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $124M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 4.52% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 703 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | -0.75% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +1.23% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +4.69% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 1.9% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -1.8% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Dec 9, 2022 |
CGW vs GTOS Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco Short Duration Total Return Bond ETF (GTOS) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while GTOS returned +1.23%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a loss of 0.75% for GTOS.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +4.69% for GTOS. Across the full 4-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.18% annualized vs +4.29%. 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 1.9% for GTOS. 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 -1.8% for GTOS. 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 0.59. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while GTOS charges 0.30%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $30 annually, a gap of $28 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 4.52% for GTOS.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and GTOS share 0 holdings out of 326 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 GTOS?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while GTOS charges 0.30%. GTOS is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $28 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or GTOS?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +1.23% for GTOS, so CGW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +4.29% for GTOS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or GTOS?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 1.9% for GTOS. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs GTOS -1.8%.
Should I hold both CGW and GTOS?
CGW and GTOS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and GTOS?
CGW and GTOS share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 326 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or GTOS?
CGW yields 1.54% while GTOS yields 4.52%, so GTOS 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.