CGW vs IVV
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, CGW or IVV?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.0B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 85 | 508 |
| YTD Return | -0.25% | +11.57%Best |
| 1Y Return | +2.18% | +17.57%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.38% | +20.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +2.77% | +12.80%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -56.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,464 | $18,262Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 55.0% | 37.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 14, 2007 to Sep 10, 2026 (19.3 years).
CGW vs IVV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 19.3 years both funds cover.
CGW vs IVV Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.18% while IVV returned +17.57%. Year to date, CGW is down 0.25% versus a gain of 11.57% for IVV.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.38% per year against +20.71% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +2.77% and +12.80% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +9.17% annualized vs +7.02%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.6% for IVV. 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 -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $3 annually, a gap of $55 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
26.2% of CGW's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.3% of IVV's money is in holdings CGW also owns.
CGW and IVV share little of their money.
5 positions in common, counted across the 67 positions we hold weights for in CGW and 505 in IVV, against full books of 85 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 490 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for CGW (99.1% of the fund), and 23 for CGW that do not appear in IVV (32.2%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
26.2% of CGW is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or IVV?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $55 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGW or IVV?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.18% vs +17.57% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.02% vs +9.17% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGW or IVV?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.6% for IVV. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both CGW and IVV?
CGW and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and IVV?
26.2% of CGW's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 0.3% of IVV's is in holdings CGW also owns. They hold 5 positions in common, counted across the 67 positions we hold weights for in CGW and 505 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or IVV?
CGW yields 1.54% while IVV yields 1.06%, so CGW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than CGW?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.