CGW vs IVV
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.97% | +12.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.90% | +20.94% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.20% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.51% | +13.05% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | May 15, 2000 |
CGW vs IVV Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% while IVV returned +20.94%. Year to date, CGW is up 1.97% versus a gain of 12.28% for IVV.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.20% per year against +21.81% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +3.51% and +13.05% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.16% annualized vs +6.98%. 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 15.1% 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 worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
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 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and IVV share 5 holdings out of 567 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $55 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or IVV?
Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% vs +20.94% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.16% vs +6.98% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or IVV?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.1% 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 combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and IVV?
CGW and IVV share 5 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 567 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or IVV?
CGW yields 1.54% while IVV yields 1.10%, 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.