ABLG vs. ICOW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

ABLG (Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF) and ICOW (Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. ABLG is actively managed, while ICOW is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ABLG returned 2.09%/yr vs 10.06%/yr for ICOW. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ABLG charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ICOW.

Performance

ABLG vs. ICOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF (ABLG) and Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABLG achieves a 4.52% return, which is significantly lower than ICOW's 17.35% return.

ABLG

• 1D: 1.19%
• 1M: 3.16%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 5.07%
• 1Y: 9.41%
• 3Y*: 9.79%
• 5Y*: 2.09%
• 10Y*: —

ICOW

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: 3.47%
• YTD: 17.35%
• 6M: 18.06%
• 1Y: 39.15%
• 3Y*: 20.17%
• 5Y*: 10.06%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ABLG vs. ICOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABLG Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF	4.52%	13.27%	0.39%	18.22%	-24.37%	16.87%	18.30%	24.52%	-17.73%	7.27%
ICOW Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF	17.35%	36.95%	-2.59%	18.94%	-7.98%	11.52%	7.20%	17.91%	-16.09%	15.81%

Correlation

The correlation between ABLG and ICOW is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2017	0.75

The correlation between ABLG and ICOW shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (1 year) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ABLG vs. ICOW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ABLG

ABLG Risk / Return Rank: 19
ABLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
ABLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
ABLG Omega Ratio Rank: 17
ABLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
ABLG Martin Ratio Rank: 22

ICOW

ICOW Risk / Return Rank: 84
ICOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
ICOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ICOW Omega Ratio Rank: 82
ICOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ICOW Martin Ratio Rank: 84

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ABLG vs. ICOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF (ABLG) and Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ABLG	ICOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	2.87	-2.31
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	3.72	-2.81
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.50	-0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.79	4.91	-4.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.81	17.54	-14.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ABLG vs. ICOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the ICOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABLG and ICOW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ABLG	ICOW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	2.87	-2.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12	0.61	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.55	-0.26

Drawdowns

ABLG vs. ICOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABLG drawdown since its inception was -34.17%, smaller than the maximum ICOW drawdown of -43.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABLG and ICOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABLG	ICOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.17%	-43.49%	+9.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.00%	-8.02%	-4.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.34%	-14.81%	-6.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.13%	-28.48%	-5.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.84%	-0.64%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.21%	-7.59%	-1.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	2.24%	+1.42%

Volatility

ABLG vs. ICOW - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF (ABLG) has a higher volatility of 6.20% compared to Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW) at 4.41%. This indicates that ABLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABLG	ICOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	4.41%	+1.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.17%	10.59%	+3.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.03%	13.73%	+3.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.93%	16.64%	+0.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.90%	18.47%	+0.43%

ABLG vs. ICOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABLG has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than ICOW's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABLG vs. ICOW - Dividend Comparison

ABLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.43%, more than ICOW's 2.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABLG Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF	2.43%	2.30%	2.13%	2.39%	9.36%	2.01%	0.64%	1.90%	0.92%	0.26%
ICOW Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF	2.12%	3.03%	4.39%	3.61%	5.26%	2.11%	2.46%	3.10%	2.61%	0.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABLG and ICOW in my portfolio?

ABLG and ICOW have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ABLG or ICOW?

ABLG has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to ICOW (4.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABLG dropped -34.17% vs ICOW's -43.49%.

Which ETF is better, ABLG or ICOW?

On 5-year performance, ICOW leads with 10.06% vs 2.09% for ABLG. On fees, ABLG is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, ICOW has been the lower-risk option at 4.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABLG or ICOW?

Over the 5-year period, ICOW has performed better with a 10.06% return vs 2.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABLG or ICOW?

ABLG is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ICOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABLG or ICOW?

ABLG has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 2.12% for ICOW.

What is the main difference between ABLG and ICOW?

They also come from different issuers: Abacus and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for ABLG and 0.65% for ICOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.87 vs 0.56), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.