CLCV vs. GCOW

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

CLCV (Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. CLCV is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, CLCV returned 27.54% vs 25.93% for GCOW. Their 0.40 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CLCV charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

CLCV vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF (CLCV) 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, CLCV achieves a 17.54% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 14.28% return.

CLCV

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 3.25%
• 6M: 14.09%
• YTD: 17.54%
• 1Y: 27.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 22.95%

GCOW

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 5.16%
• 6M: 3.37%
• YTD: 14.28%
• 1Y: 25.93%
• 3Y*: 16.41%
• 5Y*: 13.24%
• 10Y*: 9.79%
• ALL TIME*: 10.51%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CLCV Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF	$188.33K	$103.22K	$79.20K
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	$12.61M	$12.64M	$12.26M

CLCV vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLCV Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF	17.54%	5.36%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	14.28%	8.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CLCV and GCOW is 0.39, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2025	0.40

Return for Risk

CLCV vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CLCV

CLCV Risk / Return Rank: 87
CLCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
CLCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CLCV Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CLCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CLCV Martin Ratio Rank: 86

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 84
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 88
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CLCV vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CLCV	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.40	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	3.48	-0.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.43	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.98	3.33	+0.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.99	10.27	+3.72

CLCV vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLCV Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLCV 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

CLCV vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLCV drawdown since its inception was -6.94%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLCV and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLCV	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.94%	-37.64%	+30.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-7.83%	+0.89%
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	0.00%	-1.15%	+1.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.42%	-5.81%	+4.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	2.53%	-0.56%

Volatility

CLCV vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF (CLCV) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) have volatilities of 3.09% and 2.98%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLCV	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.09%	2.98%	+0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.44%	8.47%	+0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.99%	10.87%	+1.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.04%	13.54%	-1.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.04%	16.00%	-3.96%

CLCV vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLCV has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLCV vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

CLCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, less than GCOW's 4.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CLCV Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF	0.34%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.60%	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 CLCV and GCOW in my portfolio?

CLCV and GCOW have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLCV or GCOW?

CLCV has higher volatility (3.09%) compared to GCOW (2.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLCV dropped -6.94% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, CLCV or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, CLCV leads with 27.54% vs 25.93% for GCOW. On fees, CLCV is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLCV or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, CLCV has performed better with a 27.54% return vs 25.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLCV or GCOW?

CLCV is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.34% for CLCV.

What is the main difference between CLCV and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: Crossmark and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLCV and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 2.31), 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.