ACGR vs COWG
American Century Large Cap Growth ETF vs Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF
Which is better, ACGR or COWG?
Each has led over a different period.
ACGR has a lower expense ratio. ACGR led over the full window, COWG over 1Y and 3Y. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.4%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACGR | COWG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39%Best | 0.49% |
| AUM | $11M | $2.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 0.75% |
| Holdings | 94 | 204 |
| YTD Return | +7.66% | +13.88%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.05% | +13.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.56% | +22.86%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.15% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.6% | -23.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $22,137Best | $20,325 |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.4% | 32.7%Best |
| Fund Family | American Century Investments | Pacer ETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 29, 2021 | Dec 21, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 23, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.8 years).
ACGR vs COWG growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3.8 years both funds cover.
ACGR vs COWG Performance
American Century Large Cap Growth ETF (ACGR) is an ETF from American Century Investments and Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year ACGR returned +9.05% while COWG returned +13.28%. Year to date, ACGR is up 7.66% versus a gain of 13.88% for COWG.
Over three years, ACGR compounded at +19.56% per year against +22.86% for COWG. Across the full 4-year window we track, ACGR has the edge at +23.26% annualized vs +20.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACGR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.6% compared with 15.4% for COWG. 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 -24.6% for ACGR and -23.6% for COWG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACGR charges 0.39% per year while COWG charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $49 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACGR currently yields 0.10% against 0.75% for COWG.
Holdings Overlap
39.1% of ACGR's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 38.8% of COWG's money is in holdings ACGR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
26 positions in common, counted across the 93 positions we hold weights for in ACGR and 100 in COWG, against full books of 94 and 204.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 72 positions for COWG that do not appear in our book for ACGR (57.4% of the fund), and 61 for ACGR that do not appear in COWG (57.4%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ACGR | Weight in COWG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 13.38% | 0.94% | 12.44% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.72% | 0.74% | 4.98% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 1.33% | 3.60% | 2.27% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 0.96% | 3.78% | 2.82% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.61% | 0.88% | 2.73% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.90% | 3.26% | 2.36% |
| OKTAOkta Inc. | 0.35% | 3.77% | 3.42% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 0.96% | 3.11% | 2.15% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 0.57% | 3.46% | 2.89% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp. | 1.89% | 1.65% | 0.24% |
39.1% of ACGR is already inside COWG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACGR or COWG?
ACGR has an expense ratio of 0.39% while COWG charges 0.49%. ACGR is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACGR or COWG?
Over the past year ACGR returned +9.05% vs +13.28% for COWG, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), ACGR annualized +23.26% vs +20.52% for COWG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACGR or COWG?
ACGR has been the more volatile fund at 15.6% annualized versus 15.4% for COWG. Worst drawdown: ACGR -24.6% vs COWG -23.6%.
Should I hold both ACGR and COWG?
ACGR and COWG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ACGR and COWG?
39.1% of ACGR's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 38.8% of COWG's is in holdings ACGR also owns. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 93 positions we hold weights for in ACGR and 100 in COWG.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACGR or COWG?
ACGR yields 0.10% while COWG yields 0.75%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is COWG better than ACGR?
ACGR has a lower expense ratio. ACGR led over the full window, COWG over 1Y and 3Y. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.