Keep tabs on your favorite ETFs with a personalized weekly tracker. Create a Watchlist now →
MOOvsCGWETF Comparison
VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) and Invesco S&P Global Water Index ETF (CGW) belong to the same industry segment: Natural Resources. MOO's top 3 sector exposures are Consumer Staples, Materials and Industrials. In contrast, CGW's top sector exposures are Utilities, Industrials and Materials. MOO is less expensive with a Total Expense Ratio (TER) of 0.55%, versus 0.59% for CGW. MOO is up 15.03% year-to-date (YTD) with +$299M in YTD flows. CGW performs worse with 2.6% YTD performance, and +$26M in YTD flows. Run a side-by-side ETF comparison of MOO and CGW below, and assess how they stack up in performance, liquidity, risk, exposure, holdings, and more, helping you select the best ETF for your investments.
MOO vs CGW performance and flow charts
Performance
Cumulative Flows
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | MOO CGW | -2.06%-4.64% | +15.35%+2.21% | +15.03%+2.60% | +25.31%+17.00% | +7.87%+43.05% | +6.97%+44.49% |
| Flows | MOO CGW | +$44M+$5M | +$295M+$26M | +$299M+$26M | +$266M-$2M | -$224M-$196M | +$91M-$81M |
| 3M | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatility | MOO CGW | +13.81%+11.74% | +15.71%+13.95% | +14.91%+13.42% | +16.35%+15.49% |
| Max drawdown | MOO CGW | -4.90%-6.11% | -12.71%-9.36% | -26.51%-15.88% | -39.01%-32.65% |
| Max drawdown duration | MOO CGW | 20d13d | 43d35d | 1015d140d | 1421d862d |
MOO | CGW | |
Last sale 3/12/2026 at 1:30 PM | $84.79 | $63.85 |
| Previous close 03/11/2026 | $83.78 | $64.46 |
| Consolidated volume 03/11/2026 | ||
| Average volume 30 days | ||
| Average discount or premium 30 days | ||
| Average Bid/Ask spread 30 days |
Create an account to view replication metrics
MOO | CGW | |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking error | ||
| Tracking difference | ||
| 1 year cumulative return difference | ||
| Best | ||
| Worst | ||
| Daily return difference | ||
| Average | ||
| Worst | ||
MOO | CGW | |
|---|---|---|
| Last price | $84.79 | $63.85 |
| 1D performance | +1.21% | -0.95% |
| AuM | $970.45 M | $1.03 B |
| E/R | 0.55% | 0.59% |
Countries
Sectors
Diversification
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
Top 15 holdings
How have the MOO and CGW ETFs performed in 2026?
As of March 11, 2026, MOO is up 15.03% year-to-date (YTD), while CGW has returned 2.6%. That puts MOO better performer ahead so far this year.
Which ETF is attracting more investor money: MOO or CGW?
Year-to-date, the MOO ETF saw +$299M in flows, compared to +$26M for CGW.
Which ETF is more volatile: MOO or CGW?
Over the past year, MOO had a volatility of 15.71%, while CGW experienced 13.95%.
Which ETF is bigger: MOO or CGW?
As of March 11, 2026, MOO holds $970.45 M in assets under management (AUM), while CGW manages $1.03 B.
What sectors do the MOO and CGW ETFs invest in?
MOO leans toward sectors like Consumer Staples, Materials and Industrials. Meanwhile, CGW focuses on Utilities and Industrials.
What are the top holdings of the MOO ETF and CGW ETF?
MOO top holdings include DEERE, BAYER AG and ZOETIS INC. CGW holds in its top three: COMPANHIA DE SANEAMENTO BASICO, XYLEM and AMERICAN WATER WORKS.
Which ETF is more diversified: MOO or CGW?
MOO holds 47 securities with 70.5% of its assets in the top 15. CGW has 62 securities and a top 15 weight of 68.4%.
There's an ETF for that? The 3 Best ETFs for Investing in Water
Agricultural Commodity Futures ETFs vs Agricultural Equities ETFs
Active Trader Report: Use of Leveraged & Inverse ETFs Way Up
Direxion partnered with Compound Insights and Vanda to explore what’s driving the evolution of active trading — and how active traders are using leveraged and inverse funds across equities, single stocks, commodities, and volatility.
