CGW vs PATN
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. PATN delivered stronger 1-year returns. PATN offers more diversification with 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | PATN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.65% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $234M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.67% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +30.11% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +51.30% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 21.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -16.8% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Pacer ETFs | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Sep 16, 2024 |
CGW vs PATN Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while PATN returned +51.30%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 30.11% for PATN.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PATN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.1% 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 -16.8% for PATN. 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 0.35. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while PATN charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $65 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 1.67% for PATN.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and PATN share 0 holdings out of 168 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 PATN?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while PATN charges 0.65%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $7 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or PATN?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +51.30% for PATN, so PATN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +37.49% for PATN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or PATN?
PATN has been the more volatile fund at 21.1% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs PATN -16.8%.
Should I hold both CGW and PATN?
CGW and PATN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.35, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and PATN?
CGW and PATN share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 168 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or PATN?
CGW yields 1.54% while PATN yields 1.67%, so PATN 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.