COWG vs. PFM

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - COWG tracks the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, COWG returned 21.24%/yr vs 15.13%/yr for PFM. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. COWG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

COWG vs. PFM - 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 Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COWG achieves a 10.75% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.92% return.

COWG

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 7.13%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 1Y: 12.04%
• 3Y*: 21.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFM

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 0.74%
• 6M: 6.48%
• YTD: 8.92%
• 1Y: 16.33%
• 3Y*: 15.13%
• 5Y*: 10.56%
• 10Y*: 11.32%

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

COWG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	10.75%	10.24%	34.99%	20.69%	-0.68%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.92%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	-0.22%

Correlation

The correlation between COWG and PFM is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2022	0.72

The correlation between COWG and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

COWG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	COWG	PFM
Technology	51.4%	27.6%
Healthcare	20.0%	15.1%
Energy	7.3%	4.3%
Basic Materials	6.3%	2.8%
Communication Services	5.7%	1.1%
Industrials	3.1%	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	11.1%
Utilities	1.4%	3.9%
Financial Services	-	17.9%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

COWG vs. PFM — 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: 23
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 29

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 66
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. PFM - 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 Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.68	1.75	-1.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	2.56	-1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.32	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.12	2.31	-1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.21	9.39	-6.18

COWG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COWG Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COWG and PFM, 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. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COWG drawdown since its inception was -23.60%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COWG and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	COWG	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.60%	-53.21%	+29.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.79%	-7.09%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.60%	-14.50%	-9.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.98%	-0.69%	-2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.26%	-6.91%	+3.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.76%	1.74%	+2.02%

Volatility

COWG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) has a higher volatility of 7.25% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 1.95%. This indicates that COWG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COWG	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.25%	1.95%	+5.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.10%	7.11%	+6.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.76%	9.40%	+8.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.37%	13.49%	+5.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.37%	15.18%	+4.19%

COWG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

COWG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

COWG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

COWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than PFM's 1.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.34%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COWG and PFM in my portfolio?

COWG and PFM have a correlation of 0.63, 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 PFM?

COWG has higher volatility (7.25%) compared to PFM (1.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COWG dropped -23.60% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, COWG or PFM?

On 3-year performance, COWG leads with 21.24% vs 15.13% for PFM. On fees, COWG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 1.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COWG or PFM?

Over the 3-year period, COWG has performed better with a 21.24% return vs 15.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COWG or PFM?

COWG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.36% for COWG.

What is the main difference between COWG and PFM?

COWG tracks Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for COWG and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 0.68), 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.