CGW vs SAWS
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
SAWS has a lower expense ratio. SAWS delivered stronger 1-year returns. SAWS offers more diversification with 71 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | SAWS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.55% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $8M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 0.02% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 72 | |
| YTD Return | +3.48% | +16.31% | |
| 1Y Return | +3.64% | +20.06% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.47% | - | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.84% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 18.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -22.0% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Advisors Asset Management, Inc. | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Jul 30, 2024 |
CGW vs SAWS Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and AAM Sawgrass US Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) is a ETF from Advisors Asset Management, Inc.. Over the past year CGW returned +3.64% while SAWS returned +20.06%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.48% versus a gain of 16.31% for SAWS.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SAWS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.3% 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 -22.0% for SAWS. 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while SAWS charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $55 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 0.02% for SAWS.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and SAWS share 5 holdings out of 134 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.6% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or SAWS?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while SAWS charges 0.55%. SAWS is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $3 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or SAWS?
Over the past year CGW returned +3.64% vs +20.06% for SAWS, so SAWS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CGW annualized +7.25% vs +13.54% for SAWS. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or SAWS?
SAWS has been the more volatile fund at 18.3% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs SAWS -22.0%.
Should I hold both CGW and SAWS?
CGW and SAWS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and SAWS?
CGW and SAWS share 5 common holdings with a 2.6% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 134 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or SAWS?
CGW yields 1.52% while SAWS yields 0.02%, 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.