BUL vs. VFMV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BUL (Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF) and VFMV (Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. BUL is passively managed, while VFMV is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BUL returned 11.26%/yr vs 9.82%/yr for VFMV. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BUL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for VFMV.

Performance

BUL vs. VFMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUL achieves a 9.02% return, which is significantly higher than VFMV's 8.53% return.

BUL

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 5.95%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 6M: 10.73%
• 1Y: 25.79%
• 3Y*: 22.33%
• 5Y*: 11.26%
• 10Y*: —

VFMV

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: 8.53%
• 6M: 8.37%
• 1Y: 13.05%
• 3Y*: 14.70%
• 5Y*: 9.82%
• 10Y*: —

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

BUL vs. VFMV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	9.02%	19.18%	27.39%	3.68%	-16.18%	32.48%	27.26%	4.81%
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF	8.53%	10.52%	16.91%	8.86%	-5.73%	20.75%	-0.19%	10.57%

Correlation

The correlation between BUL and VFMV 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	0.68
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2019	0.73

The correlation between BUL and VFMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUL vs. VFMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUL	VFMV
Technology	28.3%	25.1%
Consumer Cyclical	22.3%	6.9%
Healthcare	21.4%	10.1%
Industrials	13.4%	10.1%
Basic Materials	5.7%	-
Energy	5.1%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	9.5%
Communication Services	1.6%	10.7%
Financial Services	-	10.6%
Real Estate	-	6.4%
Utilities	-	6.7%

Return for Risk

BUL vs. VFMV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUL

BUL Risk / Return Rank: 50
BUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
BUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
BUL Omega Ratio Rank: 42
BUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BUL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

VFMV

VFMV Risk / Return Rank: 43
VFMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
VFMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
VFMV Omega Ratio Rank: 39
VFMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
VFMV Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

BUL vs. VFMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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.

	BUL	VFMV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.49	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	2.17	+0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	2.18	+0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.49	8.57	+1.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUL vs. VFMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the VFMV Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUL and VFMV, 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

	BUL	VFMV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.55	1.49	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.84	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.69	-0.11

Drawdowns

BUL vs. VFMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUL drawdown since its inception was -37.08%, which is greater than VFMV's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUL and VFMV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUL	VFMV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.08%	-33.64%	-3.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.93%	-6.00%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.55%	-10.35%	-13.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.85%	-15.41%	-12.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.02%	+1.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.65%	-3.64%	-4.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	1.53%	+0.93%

Volatility

BUL vs. VFMV - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) at 2.09%. This indicates that BUL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUL	VFMV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	2.09%	+3.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.88%	6.30%	+5.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.78%	8.80%	+7.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.79%	11.75%	+10.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.25%	14.25%	+10.00%

BUL vs. VFMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMV's 0.13% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUL vs. VFMV - Dividend Comparison

BUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, less than VFMV's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	0.23%	0.28%	0.30%	2.11%	0.67%	0.08%	0.69%	0.81%	0.00%
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF	1.93%	2.12%	1.46%	2.20%	2.08%	1.31%	2.14%	2.43%	2.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUL and VFMV in my portfolio?

BUL and VFMV 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, BUL or VFMV?

BUL has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to VFMV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUL dropped -37.08% vs VFMV's -33.64%.

Which ETF is better, BUL or VFMV?

On 5-year performance, BUL leads with 11.26% vs 9.82% for VFMV. On fees, VFMV is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, VFMV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUL or VFMV?

Over the 5-year period, BUL has performed better with a 11.26% return vs 9.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUL or VFMV?

VFMV is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BUL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUL or VFMV?

VFMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.23% for BUL.

What is the main difference between BUL and VFMV?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BUL and 0.13% for VFMV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.49), 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.