CGW vs NMI
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc.
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. NMI delivered stronger 1-year returns. NMI offers more diversification with 220 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | NMI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.73% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | - | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 4.65% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 220 | |
| YTD Return | +1.97% | +8.93% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.90% | +13.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.20% | +8.56% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.51% | +1.80% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 11.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -34.4% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Nuveen | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Apr 20, 1988 |
CGW vs NMI Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc. (NMI) is a ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% while NMI returned +13.39%. Year to date, CGW is up 1.97% versus a gain of 8.93% for NMI.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.20% per year against +8.56% for NMI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.51% and +1.80% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.16% annualized vs +0.31%. 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 11.0% for NMI. 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 -34.4% for NMI. 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 0.17. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while NMI charges 0.73%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $73 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 4.65% for NMI.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and NMI share 0 holdings out of 162 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 NMI?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while NMI charges 0.73%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $15 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or NMI?
Over the past year CGW returned +1.90% vs +13.39% for NMI, so NMI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.16% vs +0.31% for NMI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or NMI?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 11.0% for NMI. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs NMI -34.4%.
Should I hold both CGW and NMI?
CGW and NMI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.17, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and NMI?
CGW and NMI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 162 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or NMI?
CGW yields 1.54% while NMI yields 4.65%, so NMI 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.