Screener
CGW vs EFRA
Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF vs iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF
Key differences
- EFRA costs 0.11% less per year.
- CGW is significantly larger than EFRA — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, EFRA has delivered higher annualized returns.
- CGW has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| CGW | EFRA | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.58% | 0.47% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.0B | $6M |
| Since | 2007 | 2022 |
| Dividend yield | 1.53% | 1.56% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | — | global |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +5.5% | +11.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | +10.0% | +11.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | +5.6% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.49 | 0.58 |
| Volatility 1Y | 13.38% | 14.09% |
| Max drawdown | -35.72% | -16.25% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to CGW and EFRA
Explore further