CGW vs SCHQ
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF
Quick Verdict
SCHQ has a lower expense ratio. CGW delivered stronger 1-year returns. SCHQ offers more diversification with 100 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | SCHQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $803M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 4.91% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 100 | |
| YTD Return | +2.86% | -2.75% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.90% | -0.54% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.68% | +0.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.54% | -7.03% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 13.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -46.7% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management | |
| Category | Equity | Fixed Income | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Oct 10, 2019 |
CGW vs SCHQ Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF (SCHQ) is a ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% while SCHQ returned -0.54%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.86% versus a loss of 2.75% for SCHQ.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.68% per year against +0.43% for SCHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +3.54% and -7.03% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, CGW has the edge at +7.22% annualized vs -4.42%. 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 13.5% for SCHQ. 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 -46.7% for SCHQ. 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 0.41. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while SCHQ charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $3 annually, a gap of $55 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 4.91% for SCHQ.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and SCHQ share 0 holdings out of 159 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 SCHQ?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while SCHQ charges 0.03%. SCHQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $55 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or SCHQ?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% vs -0.54% for SCHQ, so CGW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), CGW annualized +7.22% vs -4.42% for SCHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or SCHQ?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 13.5% for SCHQ. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs SCHQ -46.7%.
Should I hold both CGW and SCHQ?
CGW and SCHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.41, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and SCHQ?
CGW and SCHQ share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 159 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or SCHQ?
CGW yields 1.54% while SCHQ yields 4.91%, so SCHQ 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.