BAMV vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BAMV (Brookstone Value Stock ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. BAMV is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMV returned 15.31% vs 21.14% for GCOW. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMV charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

BAMV vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Value Stock ETF (BAMV) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAMV achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 7.34% return.

BAMV

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 9.77%
• 1Y: 15.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.00%
• YTD: 7.34%
• 6M: 7.32%
• 1Y: 21.14%
• 3Y*: 15.59%
• 5Y*: 11.72%
• 10Y*: 9.95%

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

BAMV vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMV Brookstone Value Stock ETF	10.04%	7.66%	12.03%	13.82%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	7.34%	27.34%	3.52%	6.48%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMV and GCOW is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2023	0.60

The correlation between BAMV and GCOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMV vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMV	GCOW
Financial Services	28.3%	-
Technology	26.0%	1.3%
Industrials	10.4%	12.6%
Healthcare	9.8%	14.8%
Communication Services	8.7%	14.5%
Energy	5.9%	22.9%
Basic Materials	4.9%	8.1%
Real Estate	2.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	2.1%	4.8%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	17.0%
Utilities	0.3%	4.0%

Return for Risk

BAMV vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMV

BAMV Risk / Return Rank: 43
BAMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
BAMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BAMV Omega Ratio Rank: 36
BAMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
BAMV Martin Ratio Rank: 48

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 60
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 56
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

BAMV vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Value Stock ETF (BAMV) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BAMV	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	1.91	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	2.74	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.33	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.47	3.06	-0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.45	10.42	-2.97

BAMV vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMV Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is lower than the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMV and GCOW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BAMV vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMV drawdown since its inception was -14.56%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMV and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMV	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.56%	-37.64%	+23.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-6.93%	+0.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-6.93%	+5.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-5.83%	+3.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	2.03%	+0.03%

Volatility

BAMV vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Brookstone Value Stock ETF (BAMV) has a higher volatility of 3.75% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.89%. This indicates that BAMV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BAMV	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	2.89%	+0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.62%	8.29%	+0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.90%	11.09%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.72%	13.50%	+0.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.72%	16.03%	-2.31%

BAMV vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMV has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMV vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

BAMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, less than GCOW's 4.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BAMV Brookstone Value Stock ETF	1.27%	1.32%	3.66%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.90%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAMV and GCOW in my portfolio?

BAMV and GCOW have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMV or GCOW?

BAMV has higher volatility (3.75%) compared to GCOW (2.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMV dropped -14.56% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, BAMV or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, GCOW leads with 21.14% vs 15.31% for BAMV. On fees, GCOW is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMV or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 21.14% return vs 15.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMV or GCOW?

GCOW is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BAMV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAMV or GCOW?

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.90%, compared with 1.27% for BAMV.

What is the main difference between BAMV and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BAMV and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.29), 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.