CGW vs HUSV
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. HUSV delivered stronger 1-year returns. HUSV offers more diversification with 101 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | HUSV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.70% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $74M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 1.37% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 101 | |
| YTD Return | +3.18% | +8.25% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.35% | +4.82% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.35% | +9.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.63% | +5.94% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 13.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -35.7% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | First Trust Portfolios (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Aug 24, 2016 |
CGW vs HUSV Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Domestic ETF (HUSV) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% while HUSV returned +4.82%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.18% versus a gain of 8.25% for HUSV.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.35% per year against +9.75% for HUSV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.63% and +5.94% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, HUSV has the edge at +8.47% annualized vs +7.24%. 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 13.2% for HUSV. 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 -35.7% for HUSV. 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 0.80. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while HUSV charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $70 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 1.37% for HUSV.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or HUSV?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while HUSV charges 0.70%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $12 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or HUSV?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% vs +4.82% for HUSV, so HUSV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CGW annualized +7.24% vs +8.47% for HUSV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or HUSV?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 13.2% for HUSV. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs HUSV -35.7%.
Should I hold both CGW and HUSV?
CGW and HUSV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.80, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and HUSV?
CGW and HUSV share 2 common holdings with a 1.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 167 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or HUSV?
CGW yields 1.52% while HUSV yields 1.37%, 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.