COWG vs IVV
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, COWG or IVV?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.
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 | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.4B | $896.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 1.10% |
| Holdings | 204 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +13.59% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28% | +17.54%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86%Best | +22.46% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.28% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6% | -18.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $20,325 | $21,105Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 38.9% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | May 15, 2000 |
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 IVV 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 IVV Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while IVV returned +17.54%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 13.59% for IVV.
Over three years, COWG compounded at +22.86% per year against +22.46% for IVV. Across the full 4-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +21.72% annualized vs +20.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COWG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 12.4% for IVV. 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 -18.8% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
59.2% of COWG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 30.1% of IVV's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
60 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 506 in IVV, against full books of 204 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 440 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for COWG (69.4% of the fund), and 38 for COWG that do not appear in IVV (37.0%).
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 IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 8.44% | 7.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 7.29% | 6.41% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 1.87% | 1.39% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.78% | 0.41% | 3.37% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 3.60% | 0.49% | 3.11% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 3.46% | 0.14% | 3.32% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 3.11% | 0.39% | 2.72% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 3.15% | 0.17% | 2.98% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 2.47% | 1.73% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.27% | 0.66% | 0.61% |
59.2% of COWG is already inside IVV.
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 IVV?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $46 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or IVV?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +17.54% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), COWG annualized +20.52% vs +21.72% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or IVV?
COWG has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 12.4% for IVV. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs IVV -18.8%.
Should I hold both COWG and IVV?
COWG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, 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 IVV?
59.2% of COWG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 30.1% of IVV's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 60 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 506 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or IVV?
COWG yields 0.75% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than COWG?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 3Y, IVV over 1Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.