CGW vs MFEM
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 701 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $156M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 2.39% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 701 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +21.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +33.81% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +20.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | +8.97% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 17.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Aug 31, 2017 |
CGW vs MFEM Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while MFEM returned +33.81%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 21.80% for MFEM.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +20.43% for MFEM; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and +8.97% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.18% annualized vs +6.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFEM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% compared with 17.3% for CGW. 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 -45.3% for MFEM. 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 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $49 annually, a gap of $9 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 2.39% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and MFEM share 3 holdings out of 567 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or MFEM?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while MFEM charges 0.49%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $9 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or MFEM?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +33.81% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +6.84% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or MFEM?
MFEM has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both CGW and MFEM?
CGW and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and MFEM?
CGW and MFEM share 3 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 567 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or MFEM?
CGW yields 1.54% while MFEM yields 2.39%, so MFEM 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.