COWG vs. BUL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and BUL (Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - COWG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while BUL is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Cash Cows Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, COWG returned 23.78%/yr vs 21.33%/yr for BUL. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. COWG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for BUL.

Performance

COWG vs. BUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) and Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COWG achieves a 10.61% return, which is significantly higher than BUL's 6.20% return.

COWG

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 1.71%
• YTD: 10.61%
• 6M: 8.49%
• 1Y: 14.12%
• 3Y*: 23.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BUL

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 1.19%
• YTD: 6.20%
• 6M: 3.61%
• 1Y: 24.05%
• 3Y*: 21.33%
• 5Y*: 10.53%
• 10Y*: —

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

COWG vs. BUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	10.61%	10.24%	34.99%	20.69%	-0.68%
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	6.20%	19.18%	27.39%	3.68%	-1.72%

Correlation

The correlation between COWG and BUL is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2022	0.75

The correlation between COWG and BUL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

COWG vs. BUL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	COWG	BUL
Technology	51.4%	33.2%
Healthcare	20.0%	20.7%
Energy	7.3%	4.5%
Basic Materials	6.3%	5.5%
Communication Services	5.7%	1.4%
Industrials	3.1%	12.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	20.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	1.9%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

COWG vs. BUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

COWG

COWG Risk / Return Rank: 25
COWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 28

BUL

BUL Risk / Return Rank: 47
BUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
BUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
BUL Omega Ratio Rank: 38
BUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
BUL Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

COWG vs. BUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) and Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL). 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.

	COWG	BUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	1.41	-0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.23	2.11	-0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.25	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.31	2.70	-1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	9.62	-5.80

COWG vs. BUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COWG Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the BUL Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COWG and BUL, 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

COWG vs. BUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COWG drawdown since its inception was -23.60%, smaller than the maximum BUL drawdown of -37.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COWG and BUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	COWG	BUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.60%	-37.08%	+13.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.79%	-8.93%	-1.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.60%	-23.55%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.68%	-3.07%	+1.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.27%	-7.61%	+4.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	2.51%	+1.20%

Volatility

COWG vs. BUL - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) has a higher volatility of 6.72% compared to Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) at 5.35%. This indicates that COWG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COWG	BUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.72%	5.35%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.05%	12.57%	+0.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.86%	17.14%	-0.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.23%	21.87%	-2.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	24.23%	-5.00%

COWG vs. BUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

COWG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than BUL's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

COWG vs. BUL - Dividend Comparison

COWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, more than BUL's 0.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	0.22%	0.28%	0.30%	2.11%	0.67%	0.08%	0.69%	0.81%
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.36%	0.32%	0.40%	0.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COWG and BUL in my portfolio?

COWG and BUL have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, COWG or BUL?

COWG has higher volatility (6.72%) compared to BUL (5.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COWG dropped -23.60% vs BUL's -37.08%.

Which ETF is better, COWG or BUL?

On 3-year performance, COWG leads with 23.78% vs 21.33% for BUL. On fees, COWG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, BUL has been the lower-risk option at 5.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COWG or BUL?

Over the 3-year period, COWG has performed better with a 23.78% return vs 21.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COWG or BUL?

COWG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BUL.

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

COWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.36%, compared with 0.22% for BUL.

What is the main difference between COWG and BUL?

COWG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while BUL is Mid Cap Blend Equities. COWG tracks Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while BUL tracks Pacer US Cash Cows Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for COWG and 0.60% for BUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 0.84), 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.