CGW vs VTI
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGW | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.58% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.1B | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.54% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 82 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +2.34% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.85% | +22.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.23% | +21.83% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.55% | +12.01% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -57.2% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 14, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
CGW vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% while VTI returned +22.35%. Year to date, CGW is up 2.34% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, CGW compounded at +11.23% per year against +21.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.55% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% 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 15.3% for VTI. 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 -56.6% for VTI. 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGW charges 0.58% per year while VTI 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 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
CGW and VTI share 25 holdings out of 2829 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGW or VTI?
CGW has an expense ratio of 0.58% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $55 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGW or VTI?
Over the past year CGW returned +2.85% vs +22.35% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), CGW annualized +7.18% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGW or VTI?
CGW has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: CGW -57.2% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both CGW and VTI?
CGW and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGW and VTI?
CGW and VTI share 25 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2829 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGW or VTI?
CGW yields 1.54% while VTI yields 1.07%, 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.