Screener
RIFR vs CGW
Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF vs Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF
Key differences
- CGW is significantly larger than RIFR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- RIFR follows a active selection strategy; CGW uses index tracking.
- CGW has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| RIFR | CGW | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.59% | 0.58% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $42M | $1.0B |
| Since | 2025 | 2007 |
| Dividend yield | — | 1.53% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | global | — |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +16.1% | +5.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +10.0% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +5.6% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 0.49 |
| Volatility 1Y | 10.40% | 13.38% |
| Max drawdown | -6.80% | -35.72% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to RIFR and CGW
Explore further