COWG vs FBCG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or FBCG?
FBCG has been ahead.
COWG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.5%.
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 | COWG | FBCG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $2.4B | $7.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 204 | 245 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +12.59% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28% | +17.09%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86% | +27.54%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.04% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 19.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6%Best | -27.9% |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $20,325 | $29,186Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 57.5% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Jun 2, 2020 |
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).
COWG vs FBCG 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.
COWG vs FBCG Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while FBCG returned +17.09%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 12.59% for FBCG.
Over three years, COWG compounded at +22.86% per year against +27.54% for FBCG. Across the full 4-year window we track, FBCG has the edge at +32.56% annualized vs +20.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBCG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.4% 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 -23.6% for COWG and -27.9% for FBCG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while FBCG charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $57 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.03% for FBCG.
Holdings Overlap
31.1% of COWG's money is in holdings FBCG also owns. 39.8% of FBCG's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
21 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 200 in FBCG, against full books of 204 and 245.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 159 positions for FBCG that do not appear in our book for COWG (56.1% of the fund), and 76 for COWG that do not appear in FBCG (65.1%).
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 COWG | Weight in FBCG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 15.68% | 14.74% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 9.22% | 8.34% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 2.37% | 0.89% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 3.11% | 1.84% | 1.27% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 4.11% | 3.37% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.78% | 0.81% | 2.97% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 3.60% | 0.73% | 2.87% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 3.46% | 0.10% | 3.36% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp. | 1.65% | 1.38% | 0.27% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.27% | 0.55% | 0.72% |
39.8% of FBCG 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, COWG or FBCG?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while FBCG charges 0.57%. COWG is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or FBCG?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +17.09% for FBCG, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), COWG annualized +20.52% vs +32.56% for FBCG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or FBCG?
FBCG has been the more volatile fund at 19.4% annualized versus 15.4% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs FBCG -27.9%.
Should I hold both COWG and FBCG?
COWG and FBCG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, 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 COWG and FBCG?
39.8% of FBCG's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 39.8% of FBCG's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 21 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 200 in FBCG.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or FBCG?
COWG yields 0.75% while FBCG yields 0.03%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FBCG better than COWG?
COWG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.