CGW vs TYLG
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
CGW has a lower expense ratio. TYLG delivered stronger 1-year returns. CGW offers more diversification with 82 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | TYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 8.89% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 78 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +21.18% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +35.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +23.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -24.5% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | Nov 21, 2022 |
CGW vs TYLG Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while TYLG returned +35.64%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 21.18% for TYLG.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +23.66% for TYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, TYLG has the edge at +25.12% annualized vs +7.18%. 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 15.8% for TYLG. 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 -24.5% for TYLG. 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 0.28. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while TYLG charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $58 vs $60 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGW currently yields 1.54% against 8.89% for TYLG.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and TYLG share 0 holdings out of 141 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 TYLG?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while TYLG charges 0.60%. CGW is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $2 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or TYLG?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +35.64% for TYLG, so TYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +25.12% for TYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or TYLG?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.8% for TYLG. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs TYLG -24.5%.
Should I hold both CGW and TYLG?
CGW and TYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.28, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and TYLG?
CGW and TYLG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 141 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or TYLG?
CGW yields 1.54% while TYLG yields 8.89%, so TYLG 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.