BLCV vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BLCV (Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. BLCV is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BLCV returned 18.17%/yr vs 15.59%/yr for GCOW. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLCV charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

BLCV vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF (BLCV) 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, BLCV achieves a 6.47% return, which is significantly lower than GCOW's 7.34% return.

BLCV

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 6.47%
• 6M: 5.91%
• 1Y: 18.72%
• 3Y*: 18.17%
• 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)

BLCV vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BLCV Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF	6.47%	19.96%	12.63%	14.56%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	7.34%	27.34%	3.52%	7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between BLCV 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2023	0.63

The correlation between BLCV and GCOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLCV vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLCV	GCOW
Technology	18.3%	1.3%
Financial Services	14.9%	-
Industrials	14.2%	12.6%
Healthcare	11.6%	14.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	4.8%
Communication Services	9.5%	14.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	17.0%
Energy	6.0%	22.9%
Utilities	4.4%	4.0%
Real Estate	2.7%	-
Basic Materials	2.4%	8.1%

Return for Risk

BLCV vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLCV

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

BLCV vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF (BLCV) 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.

	BLCV	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.91	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.59	2.74	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.33	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.11	3.06	-0.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.49	10.42	-1.93

BLCV vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLCV Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLCV 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

BLCV vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLCV drawdown since its inception was -13.44%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLCV and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLCV	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.44%	-37.64%	+24.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.92%	-6.93%	-2.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.44%	-12.35%	-1.09%
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	-1.81%	-6.93%	+5.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-5.83%	+3.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	2.03%	+0.43%

Volatility

BLCV vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF (BLCV) has a higher volatility of 3.36% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.89%. This indicates that BLCV'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

	BLCV	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.36%	2.89%	+0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.03%	8.29%	+0.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.65%	11.09%	+0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.81%	13.50%	-0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.81%	16.03%	-3.22%

BLCV vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLCV has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLCV vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

BLCV has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.90%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BLCV Blackrock Large Cap Value ETF	1.01%	1.37%	1.63%	1.02%	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 BLCV and GCOW in my portfolio?

BLCV 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, BLCV or GCOW?

BLCV has higher volatility (3.36%) compared to GCOW (2.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLCV dropped -13.44% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, BLCV or GCOW?

On 3-year performance, BLCV leads with 18.17% vs 15.59% for GCOW. On fees, BLCV is cheaper at 0.55% 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, BLCV or GCOW?

Over the 3-year period, BLCV has performed better with a 18.17% return vs 15.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLCV or GCOW?

BLCV is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.90%, compared with 1.01% for BLCV.

What is the main difference between BLCV and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for BLCV and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.79), 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.