CGW vs IGBH
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF
Quick Verdict
IGBH has a lower expense ratio. IGBH delivered stronger 1-year returns. IGBH offers more diversification with 4,130 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | IGBH | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.14% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $233M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 5.62% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 4,130 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +2.18% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +5.92% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +7.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | +5.45% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 7.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -38.9% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Jul 22, 2015 |
CGW vs IGBH Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Interest Rate Hedged Long-Term Corporate Bond ETF (IGBH) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while IGBH returned +5.92%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 2.18% for IGBH.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +7.66% for IGBH; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and +5.45% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.18% annualized vs +2.91%. 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 7.5% for IGBH. 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 -38.9% for IGBH. 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 0.58. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while IGBH charges 0.14%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $14 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 5.62% for IGBH.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and IGBH share 0 holdings out of 143 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 IGBH?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while IGBH charges 0.14%. IGBH is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $44 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or IGBH?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +5.92% for IGBH, so IGBH leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +2.91% for IGBH. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or IGBH?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 7.5% for IGBH. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs IGBH -38.9%.
Should I hold both CGW and IGBH?
CGW and IGBH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and IGBH?
CGW and IGBH share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 143 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or IGBH?
CGW yields 1.54% while IGBH yields 5.62%, so IGBH 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.