CAFG vs. FSGS

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - CAFG tracks the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross while FSGS tracks the SMID Growth Strength Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CAFG returned 15.90%/yr vs 7.31%/yr for FSGS. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CAFG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FSGS.

Performance

CAFG vs. FSGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAFG achieves a 30.28% return, which is significantly higher than FSGS's 2.22% return.

CAFG

• 1D: 0.91%
• 1M: 3.24%
• YTD: 30.28%
• 6M: 27.33%
• 1Y: 37.55%
• 3Y*: 15.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FSGS

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 2.22%
• 6M: 0.16%
• 1Y: 7.09%
• 3Y*: 7.31%
• 5Y*: 2.65%
• 10Y*: —

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

CAFG vs. FSGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	30.28%	0.17%	6.95%	21.26%
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	2.22%	2.41%	6.38%	12.92%

Correlation

The correlation between CAFG and FSGS is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2023	0.85

The correlation between CAFG and FSGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CAFG vs. FSGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CAFG	FSGS
Technology	35.1%	18.8%
Healthcare	24.5%	16.8%
Industrials	15.0%	19.8%
Energy	8.9%	4.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	7.9%
Communication Services	2.9%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	5.9%
Basic Materials	2.4%	2.0%
Utilities	1.1%	-
Financial Services	-	19.8%
Real Estate	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

CAFG vs. FSGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 80
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 85

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 16
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

CAFG vs. FSGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). 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.

	CAFG	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	0.47	+1.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	0.78	+2.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.09	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.64	0.63	+4.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.28	1.77	+13.51

CAFG vs. FSGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is higher than the FSGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAFG and FSGS, 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

CAFG vs. FSGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAFG drawdown since its inception was -23.66%, smaller than the maximum FSGS drawdown of -43.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAFG and FSGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAFG	FSGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.66%	-43.26%	+19.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.13%	-11.31%	+3.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.66%	-24.08%	+0.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-3.84%	+3.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.43%	-8.00%	+2.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	4.02%	-1.56%

Volatility

CAFG vs. FSGS - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) has a higher volatility of 4.83% compared to First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) at 3.55%. This indicates that CAFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FSGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAFG	FSGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.83%	3.55%	+1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.14%	10.86%	+2.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.61%	15.17%	+2.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.53%	20.08%	-0.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.53%	22.75%	-3.22%

CAFG vs. FSGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAFG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than FSGS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAFG vs. FSGS - Dividend Comparison

CAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, more than FSGS's 0.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.03%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CAFG and FSGS in my portfolio?

CAFG and FSGS have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAFG or FSGS?

CAFG has higher volatility (4.83%) compared to FSGS (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAFG dropped -23.66% vs FSGS's -43.26%.

Which ETF is better, CAFG or FSGS?

On 3-year performance, CAFG leads with 15.90% vs 7.31% for FSGS. On fees, CAFG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, FSGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAFG or FSGS?

Over the 3-year period, CAFG has performed better with a 15.90% return vs 7.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAFG or FSGS?

CAFG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FSGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CAFG or FSGS?

CAFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.31%, compared with 0.03% for FSGS.

What is the main difference between CAFG and FSGS?

CAFG tracks Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FSGS tracks SMID Growth Strength Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for CAFG and 0.60% for FSGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 0.47), 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.