COWG vs NBGX
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs Neuberger Berman Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or NBGX?
COWG has been ahead.
NBGX has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.4%.
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 | NBGX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.44%Best |
| AUM | $2.4B | $15M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.38% |
| Holdings | 204 | 112 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +8.10% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28%Best | +9.56% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6% | -21.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,550Best | $12,451 |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 53.4% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Neuberger Berman ETF Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Dec 18, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
COWG vs NBGX 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
COWG vs NBGX Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Neuberger Berman Growth ETF (NBGX) is an ETF from Neuberger Berman ETF Trust. Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while NBGX returned +9.56%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 8.10% for NBGX.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NBGX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% 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 -21.6% for NBGX. 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 NBGX charges 0.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $44 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.38% for NBGX.
Holdings Overlap
21.2% of COWG's money is in holdings NBGX also owns. 30.7% of NBGX's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
14 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 58 in NBGX, against full books of 204 and 112.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 39 positions for NBGX that do not appear in our book for COWG (59.1% of the fund), and 84 for COWG that do not appear in NBGX (75.1%).
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 NBGX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 10.67% | 9.73% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 2.85% | 0.41% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 4.94% | 4.20% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.78% | 1.58% | 2.20% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 4.43% | 3.55% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 3.11% | 1.69% | 1.42% |
| OKTAOkta Inc. | 3.77% | 0.20% | 3.57% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.67% | 1.16% | 0.49% |
| SNPSSynopsys | 0.72% | 1.08% | 0.36% |
| NOWServicenow, Inc. | 1.16% | 0.43% | 0.73% |
30.7% of NBGX 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 NBGX?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while NBGX charges 0.44%. NBGX is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or NBGX?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +9.56% for NBGX, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), COWG annualized +13.45% vs +12.95% for NBGX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or NBGX?
NBGX has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 14.8% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs NBGX -21.6%.
Should I hold both COWG and NBGX?
COWG and NBGX 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 NBGX?
30.7% of NBGX's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 30.7% of NBGX's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 58 in NBGX.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or NBGX?
COWG yields 0.75% while NBGX yields 0.38%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NBGX better than COWG?
NBGX has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.