CGW vs SPGM
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
SPGM has a lower expense ratio. SPGM delivered stronger 1-year returns. SPGM offers more diversification with 2,985 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | SPGM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.09% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $1.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.81% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 2,985 | |
| YTD Return | +2.86% | +15.41% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.90% | +25.49% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.68% | +21.81% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.54% | +11.66% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 13.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -34.0% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Feb 27, 2012 |
CGW vs SPGM Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (SPGM) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% while SPGM returned +25.49%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.86% versus a gain of 15.41% for SPGM.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +10.68% per year against +21.81% for SPGM; over five years the annualized figures are +3.54% and +11.66% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SPGM has the edge at +9.95% annualized vs +7.22%. 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 13.7% for SPGM. 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 -34.0% for SPGM. 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 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while SPGM charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $9 annually, a gap of $49 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 1.81% for SPGM.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and SPGM share 18 holdings out of 2895 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or SPGM?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while SPGM charges 0.09%. SPGM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $49 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or SPGM?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.90% vs +25.49% for SPGM, so SPGM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), CGW annualized +7.22% vs +9.95% for SPGM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or SPGM?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 13.7% for SPGM. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs SPGM -34.0%.
Should I hold both CGW and SPGM?
CGW and SPGM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and SPGM?
CGW and SPGM share 18 common holdings with a 0.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2895 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or SPGM?
CGW yields 1.54% while SPGM yields 1.81%, so SPGM 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.