COWG vs MFSG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs MFS Active Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or MFSG?
Each has led over a different period.
COWG led over 1Y, MFSG over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.3%.
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 | MFSG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49%Tie | 0.49%Tie |
| AUM | $2.4B | $406M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 204 | 69 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +7.53% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28%Best | +9.18% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8%Best | 17.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6% | -23.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $11,929 | $12,025Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 53.3% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | MFS Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Dec 5, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.9 years).
COWG vs MFSG 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 1.9 years both funds cover.
COWG vs MFSG Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) is an ETF from MFS Investment Management. Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while MFSG returned +9.18%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 7.53% for MFSG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFSG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.5% compared with 14.8% 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 -23.2% for MFSG. 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 MFSG charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $49 annually. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.06% for MFSG.
Holdings Overlap
21.6% of COWG's money is in holdings MFSG also owns. 38.3% of MFSG's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
17 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 67 in MFSG, against full books of 204 and 69.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 45 positions for MFSG that do not appear in our book for COWG (56.4% of the fund), and 81 for COWG that do not appear in MFSG (74.6%).
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 COWG | Weight in MFSG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 13.98% | 13.04% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 6.42% | 5.54% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 1.15% | 2.11% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 3.60% | 0.50% | 3.10% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 3.20% | 2.46% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 3.11% | 0.46% | 2.65% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc. | 1.46% | 1.96% | 0.50% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp. | 1.65% | 1.42% | 0.23% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 0.55% | 1.90% | 1.35% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 0.81% | 1.61% | 0.80% |
38.3% of MFSG 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 MFSG?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while MFSG charges 0.49%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, COWG or MFSG?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +9.18% for MFSG, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), COWG annualized +9.73% vs +10.19% for MFSG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or MFSG?
MFSG has been the more volatile fund at 17.5% annualized versus 14.8% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs MFSG -23.2%.
Should I hold both COWG and MFSG?
COWG and MFSG 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 MFSG?
38.3% of MFSG's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 38.3% of MFSG's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 67 in MFSG.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or MFSG?
COWG yields 0.75% while MFSG yields 0.06%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MFSG better than COWG?
COWG led over 1Y, MFSG over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.