CAML vs COWG
Congress Large Cap Growth ETF vs Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF
Which is better, CAML or COWG?
COWG has been ahead.
COWG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.7%.
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 | CAML | COWG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | $394M | $2.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.75% |
| Holdings | 39 | 204 |
| YTD Return | +6.09% | +13.88%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.81% | +13.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.98% | +22.86%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -21.1%Best | -23.6% |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $16,123 | $18,679Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.7% | 32.7%Best |
| Fund Family | Congress Asset Management Company | Pacer ETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Aug 22, 2023 | Dec 21, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 22, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
CAML 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 3.1 years both funds cover.
CAML vs COWG Performance
Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) is an ETF from Congress Asset Management Company and Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs. Over the past year CAML returned +5.81% while COWG returned +13.28%. Year to date, CAML is up 6.09% versus a gain of 13.88% for COWG.
Over three years, CAML compounded at +16.98% per year against +22.86% for COWG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COWG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 14.6% for CAML. 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 -21.1% for CAML 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CAML charges 0.65% per year while COWG charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $49 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CAML currently yields 0.00% against 0.75% for COWG.
Holdings Overlap
34.0% of CAML's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 14.2% of COWG's money is in holdings CAML also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
10 positions in common, counted across the 38 positions we hold weights for in CAML and 100 in COWG, against full books of 39 and 204.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 88 positions for COWG that do not appear in our book for CAML (82.0% of the fund), and 24 for CAML that do not appear in COWG (57.6%).
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 CAML | Weight in COWG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 0.94% | 7.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.20% | 0.88% | 5.32% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.41% | 3.26% | 0.85% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 1.73% | 3.78% | 2.05% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.22% | 0.74% | 3.48% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 3.41% | 1.46% | 1.95% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 2.70% | 0.55% | 2.15% |
| TXNTexas Instruments, Inc. | 2.02% | 0.99% | 1.03% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.73% | 1.27% | 0.46% |
| IDXXIdexx Laboratories Inc Common Stock Usd 0.1 | 1.16% | 0.34% | 0.82% |
34.0% of CAML 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, CAML or COWG?
CAML has an expense ratio of 0.65% while COWG charges 0.49%. COWG is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CAML or COWG?
Over the past year CAML returned +5.81% vs +13.28% for COWG, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CAML or COWG?
COWG has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 14.6% for CAML. Worst drawdown: CAML -21.1% vs COWG -23.6%.
Should I hold both CAML and COWG?
CAML and COWG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CAML and COWG?
34.0% of CAML's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 14.2% of COWG's is in holdings CAML also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 38 positions we hold weights for in CAML and 100 in COWG.
Which pays a higher dividend, CAML or COWG?
CAML yields 0.00% while COWG yields 0.75%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is COWG better than CAML?
COWG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.