PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
COWG vs. IWR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

COWG vs. IWR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - COWG tracks the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index while IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, COWG returned 24.53%/yr vs 17.25%/yr for IWR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. COWG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWR.

Performance

COWG vs. IWR - 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 iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with COWG having a 12.50% return and IWR slightly lower at 12.43%.

COWG

1D
0.07%
1M
8.17%
YTD
12.50%
6M
12.76%
1Y
13.36%
3Y*
24.53%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

IWR

1D
-0.26%
1M
3.79%
YTD
12.43%
6M
12.21%
1Y
21.66%
3Y*
17.25%
5Y*
8.00%
10Y*
11.55%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

COWG vs. IWR - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
COWG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF		12.50%10.24%34.99%20.69%-0.68%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		12.43%10.37%15.21%17.05%0.52%

Correlation

The correlation between COWG and IWR 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

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 23, 2022

0.82

The correlation between COWG and IWR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

COWG vs. IWR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
COWG
IWR

Technology

48.5%
17.2%

Healthcare

21.0%
8.7%

Energy

8.4%
7.2%

Basic Materials

6.5%
4.3%

Communication Services

5.2%
3.4%

Industrials

3.6%
18.4%

Consumer Cyclical

3.2%
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

2.0%
4.1%

Utilities

1.5%
6.1%

Financial Services

-

12.5%

Real Estate

-

7.0%

Technology

COWG
48.5%
IWR
17.2%

Healthcare

COWG
21.0%
IWR
8.7%

Energy

COWG
8.4%
IWR
7.2%

Basic Materials

COWG
6.5%
IWR
4.3%

Communication Services

COWG
5.2%
IWR
3.4%

Industrials

COWG
3.6%
IWR
18.4%

Consumer Cyclical

COWG
3.2%
IWR
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

COWG
2.0%
IWR
4.1%

Utilities

COWG
1.5%
IWR
6.1%

Financial Services

COWG

-

IWR
12.5%

Real Estate

COWG

-

IWR
7.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF

iShares Russell Midcap ETF

Often compared with COWG:
COWG vs. COWZCOWG vs. BULCOWG vs. VOOCOWG vs. SCHGCOWG vs. TTACCOWG vs. VUGCOWG vs. QUAL
Often compared with IWR:
IWR vs. VOIWR vs. IWDIWR vs. SPMDIWR vs. IWNIWR vs. SCHMIWR vs. VXFIWR vs. REGL

Return for Risk

COWG vs. IWR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
COWG
COWG Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
COWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
Martin Ratio Rank
IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
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. IWR - 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 iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). 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.

COWGIWRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.84
1.63

-0.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.24
2.35

-1.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.28

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.24

2.66

-1.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.64

10.28

-6.63

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

COWG vs. IWR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COWG Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the IWR Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COWG and IWR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

COWGIWRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

1.63

-0.79

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.44

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.60

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.18

0.49

+0.69

Drawdowns

COWG vs. IWR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COWG drawdown since its inception was -23.60%, smaller than the maximum IWR drawdown of -58.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COWG and IWR.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

COWGIWRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.60%

-58.78%

+35.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.79%

-8.17%

-2.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.60%

-21.09%

-2.51%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-26.18%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-40.59%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.26%

+0.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.28%

-7.80%

+4.52%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.67%

2.11%

+1.56%

Volatility

COWG vs. IWR - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) has a higher volatility of 3.67% compared to iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) at 3.26%. This indicates that COWG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

COWGIWRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.67%

3.26%

+0.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.01%

9.84%

+2.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.96%

13.39%

+2.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.11%

18.23%

+0.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.11%

19.36%

-0.25%

COWG vs. IWR - Expense Ratio Comparison

COWG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than IWR's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

COWG vs. IWR - Dividend Comparison

COWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, less than IWR's 1.15% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
COWG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF		0.30%0.32%0.40%0.47%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		1.15%1.29%1.27%1.43%1.59%1.04%1.28%1.43%1.98%1.52%1.72%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

COWG and IWR 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.

COWG has higher volatility (3.67%) compared to IWR (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COWG dropped -23.60% vs IWR's -58.78%.

On 3-year performance, COWG leads with 24.53% vs 17.25% for IWR. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, COWG has performed better with a 24.53% return vs 17.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for COWG.

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.30% for COWG.

COWG tracks Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for COWG and 0.19% for IWR.

IWR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.63 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for COWG and IWR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer