COWG vs TCHP
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or TCHP?
Each has led over a different period.
COWG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and 3Y, TCHP over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%.
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 | TCHP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $2.4B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 204 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +13.88%Best | +2.74% |
| 1Y Return | +13.28%Best | +5.10% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86%Best | +21.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.18% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 16.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6% | -22.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $20,325 | $24,689Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 59.3% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Aug 4, 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 TCHP 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 TCHP Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% while TCHP returned +5.10%. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 2.74% for TCHP.
Over three years, COWG compounded at +22.86% per year against +21.81% for TCHP. Across the full 4-year window we track, TCHP has the edge at +26.85% annualized vs +20.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TCHP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% 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 -22.9% for TCHP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while TCHP 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 0.00% for TCHP.
Holdings Overlap
19.5% of COWG's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 35.6% of TCHP'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 62 in TCHP, against full books of 204 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 44 positions for TCHP that do not appear in our book for COWG (60.5% of the fund), and 84 for COWG that do not appear in TCHP (76.7%).
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 TCHP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.94% | 17.43% | 16.49% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.74% | 5.79% | 5.05% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.88% | 4.94% | 4.06% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.26% | 1.33% | 1.93% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.78% | 0.74% | 3.04% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 3.46% | 0.27% | 3.19% |
| NOWServicenow, Inc. | 1.16% | 0.75% | 0.41% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.99% | 0.74% | 0.25% |
| BKNGBooking Holdings, Inc. | 0.66% | 1.02% | 0.36% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.27% | 0.32% | 0.95% |
35.6% of TCHP 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 TCHP?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while TCHP charges 0.57%. COWG is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or TCHP?
Over the past year COWG returned +13.28% vs +5.10% for TCHP, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), COWG annualized +20.52% vs +26.85% for TCHP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or TCHP?
TCHP has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 15.4% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs TCHP -22.9%.
Should I hold both COWG and TCHP?
COWG and TCHP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, 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 TCHP?
35.6% of TCHP's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 35.6% of TCHP'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 62 in TCHP.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or TCHP?
COWG yields 0.75% while TCHP yields 0.00%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCHP better than COWG?
COWG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y and 3Y, TCHP over the full window. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.