COWG vs IWF
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or IWF?
Each has led over a different period.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and 3Y, IWF over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%.
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 | COWG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $2.4B | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 204 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86%Best | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 15.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6% | -23.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $20,325 | $23,519Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | May 22, 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 IWF 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 IWF Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, COWG compounded at +22.86% per year against +22.37% for IWF. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +25.24% annualized vs +20.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.9% 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 -23.4% for IWF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $18 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
53.9% of COWG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 42.2% of IWF's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
51 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 372 in IWF, against full books of 204 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 256 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for COWG (57.4% of the fund), and 45 for COWG that do not appear in IWF (42.3%).
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 IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 15.77% | 14.83% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 7.58% | 6.70% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 3.62% | 0.36% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 4.68% | 3.94% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.78% | 0.78% | 3.00% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 3.60% | 0.94% | 2.66% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 3.46% | 0.27% | 3.19% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 3.15% | 0.32% | 2.83% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.27% | 1.24% | 0.03% |
| IRDMIridium Communications Inc | 2.39% | 0.00% | 2.39% |
53.9% of COWG is already inside IWF.
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 IWF?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or IWF?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +7.28% for IWF, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), COWG annualized +20.52% vs +25.24% for IWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or IWF?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 15.9% annualized versus 15.4% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both COWG and IWF?
COWG and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, 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 IWF?
53.9% of COWG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 42.2% of IWF's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 51 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or IWF?
COWG yields 0.75% while IWF yields 0.34%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than COWG?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and 3Y, IWF over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.