CGW vs IG
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Principal Investment Grade Corporate ETF
Quick Verdict
IG has a lower expense ratio. CGW delivered stronger 1-year returns. IG offers more diversification with 145 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | IG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.19% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $198M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 5.07% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 248 | |
| YTD Return | +3.18% | -1.42% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.35% | +0.60% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.35% | +4.88% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.63% | -0.80% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 8.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -23.8% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Principal Funds | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Apr 18, 2018 |
CGW vs IG Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Principal Investment Grade Corporate ETF (IG) is a ETF from Principal Funds. Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% while IG returned +0.60%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.18% versus a loss of 1.42% for IG.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.35% per year against +4.88% for IG; over five years the annualized figures are +3.63% and -0.80% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.24% annualized vs +0.60%. 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 8.0% for IG. 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 -23.8% for IG. 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 0.70. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while IG charges 0.19%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $19 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 5.07% for IG.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and IG share 0 holdings out of 213 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 IG?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while IG charges 0.19%. IG is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $39 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or IG?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% vs +0.60% for IG, so CGW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), CGW annualized +7.24% vs +0.60% for IG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or IG?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 8.0% for IG. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs IG -23.8%.
Should I hold both CGW and IG?
CGW and IG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.70, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and IG?
CGW and IG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 213 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or IG?
CGW yields 1.52% while IG yields 5.07%, so IG 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.