COWZ vs VTI
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, COWZ or VTI?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. COWZ led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. COWZ is less concentrated, with 21.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $18.6B | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.72% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 202 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +14.31% | +14.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | +22.70%Best | +17.97% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.01% | +22.47%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.99% | +12.62%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.7% | 15.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -38.6% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,843 | $18,117Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 21.5%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 16, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2016 to Oct 13, 2026 (9.8 years).
COWZ vs VTI 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 9.8 years both funds cover.
COWZ vs VTI Performance
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year COWZ returned +22.70% while VTI returned +17.97%. Year to date, COWZ is up 14.31% versus a gain of 14.35% for VTI.
Over three years, COWZ compounded at +13.01% per year against +22.47% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +10.99% and +12.62% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.69% annualized vs +12.91%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COWZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.7% compared with 15.9% for VTI. 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 -38.6% for COWZ and -35.0% for VTI. 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
COWZ charges 0.49% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWZ currently yields 1.72% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.7% of COWZ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 7.0% of VTI's money is in holdings COWZ also owns.
Most of COWZ is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
99 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWZ and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 202 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,052 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for COWZ (90.5% of the fund), and 1 for COWZ that do not appear in VTI (1.4%).
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 COWZ | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 2.43% | 0.20% | 2.23% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.46% | 0.13% | 2.33% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 2.32% | 0.14% | 2.18% |
| TAT&T Inc | 2.09% | 0.22% | 1.87% |
| VZVerizon Communications Inc Vz | 2.03% | 0.24% | 1.79% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.03% | 0.22% | 1.81% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 2.03% | 0.18% | 1.85% |
| HCAHca-the Healthcare Co | 2.09% | 0.09% | 2.00% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 1.94% | 0.20% | 1.74% |
| VLOValero Energy | 2.00% | 0.13% | 1.87% |
98.7% of COWZ is already inside VTI.
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, COWZ or VTI?
COWZ has an expense ratio of 0.49% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $46 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWZ or VTI?
Over the past year COWZ returned +22.70% vs +17.97% for VTI, so COWZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), COWZ annualized +12.91% vs +13.69% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWZ or VTI?
COWZ has been the more volatile fund at 18.7% annualized versus 15.9% for VTI. Worst drawdown: COWZ -38.6% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both COWZ and VTI?
COWZ and VTI 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 COWZ and VTI?
98.7% of COWZ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 7.0% of VTI's is in holdings COWZ also owns. They hold 99 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in COWZ and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWZ or VTI?
COWZ yields 1.72% while VTI yields 1.03%, so COWZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than COWZ?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. COWZ led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. COWZ is less concentrated, with 21.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.