COWG vs TFGZ
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs Thornburg Focus Growth Fund ETF
Which is better, COWG or TFGZ?
TFGZ has been ahead.
COWG has a lower expense ratio. TFGZ led over 1Y. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%.
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 | TFGZ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49%Best | 0.79% |
| AUM | $2.4B | $12M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 204 | 43 |
| YTD Return | +13.88% | +16.33%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.28% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.86% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 32.7%Best | 49.4% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Thornburg Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Apr 1, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
COWG vs TFGZ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
COWG vs TFGZ Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Thornburg Focus Growth Fund ETF (TFGZ) is an ETF from Thornburg Investment Management. Year to date, COWG is up 13.88% versus a gain of 16.33% for TFGZ.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while TFGZ charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $79 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.00% for TFGZ.
Holdings Overlap
11.0% of COWG's money is in holdings TFGZ also owns. 17.8% of TFGZ's money is in holdings COWG also owns.
TFGZ and COWG share little of their money.
5 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 42 in TFGZ, against full books of 204 and 43.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 30 positions for TFGZ that do not appear in our book for COWG (71.1% of the fund), and 94 for COWG that do not appear in TFGZ (88.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of COWG and TFGZ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, COWG or TFGZ?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while TFGZ charges 0.79%. COWG is the cheaper option, by $30 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between COWG and TFGZ?
17.8% of TFGZ's money is in holdings COWG also owns. 17.8% of TFGZ's is in holdings COWG also owns. They hold 5 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWG and 42 in TFGZ.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or TFGZ?
COWG yields 0.75% while TFGZ yields 0.00%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TFGZ better than COWG?
COWG has a lower expense ratio. TFGZ led over 1Y. COWG is less concentrated, with 32.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.