CGW vs SBIO
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
SBIO has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. SBIO offers more diversification with 87 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $1.0B | $202M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 4.05% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 87 | |
| YTD Return | +3.18% | +33.41% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.35% | +92.28% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.35% | +32.22% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.63% | +9.70% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Dec 30, 2014 |
CGW vs SBIO Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% while SBIO returned +92.28%. Year to date, CGW is up 3.18% versus a gain of 33.41% for SBIO.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.35% per year against +32.22% for SBIO; over five years the annualized figures are +3.63% and +9.70% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, SBIO has the edge at +9.68% annualized vs +7.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% 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 -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.46. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $50 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.52% against 4.05% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 173 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 SBIO?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while SBIO charges 0.50%. SBIO is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $8 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or SBIO?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.35% vs +92.28% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CGW annualized +7.24% vs +9.68% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 17.3% for CGW. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both CGW and SBIO?
CGW and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.46, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and SBIO?
CGW and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 173 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or SBIO?
CGW yields 1.52% while SBIO yields 4.05%, so SBIO 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.