CGW vs QQQ
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 108 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +16.64% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +27.27% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +25.96% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | +14.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Mar 10, 1999 |
CGW vs QQQ Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while QQQ returned +27.27%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 16.64% for QQQ.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +25.96% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and +14.54% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +7.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% 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 -83.0% for QQQ. 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 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $18 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and QQQ share 0 holdings out of 169 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 QQQ?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $40 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or QQQ?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +27.27% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +13.03% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both CGW and QQQ?
CGW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and QQQ?
CGW and QQQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 169 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or QQQ?
CGW yields 1.54% while QQQ yields 0.44%, 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.