COWS vs. VFVA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

COWS (Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF) and VFVA (Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Value Equities funds. COWS is passively managed, while VFVA is actively managed. Over the past year, COWS returned 32.48% vs 37.96% for VFVA. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. COWS charges 0.00%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for VFVA.

Performance

COWS vs. VFVA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF (COWS) and Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF (VFVA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COWS achieves a 16.71% return, which is significantly lower than VFVA's 19.47% return.

COWS

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 4.92%
• 6M: 14.74%
• YTD: 16.71%
• 1Y: 32.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.58%

VFVA

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 4.08%
• 6M: 14.51%
• YTD: 19.47%
• 1Y: 37.96%
• 3Y*: 16.39%
• 5Y*: 12.45%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.75%

*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)
COWS Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF	$328.33K	$310.96K	$216.44K
VFVA Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF	$2.76M	$2.45M	$1.67M

COWS vs. VFVA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
COWS Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF	16.71%	15.29%	11.08%	9.31%
VFVA Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF	19.47%	14.77%	7.67%	11.24%

Correlation

The correlation between COWS and VFVA is 0.87, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2023	0.91

The correlation between COWS and VFVA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

COWS vs. VFVA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	COWS	VFVA
Consumer Cyclical	18.5%	13.1%
Technology	17.8%	14.5%
Industrials	16.3%	7.6%
Financial Services	15.9%	25.7%
Healthcare	11.4%	14.9%
Energy	8.7%	7.3%
Basic Materials	6.1%	3.3%
Communication Services	2.7%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	7.1%
Utilities	2.3%	-
Real Estate	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

COWS vs. VFVA — Risk / Return Rank

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

COWS

COWS Risk / Return Rank: 86
COWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
COWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
COWS Omega Ratio Rank: 79
COWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
COWS Martin Ratio Rank: 91

VFVA

VFVA Risk / Return Rank: 92
VFVA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
VFVA Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
VFVA Omega Ratio Rank: 90
VFVA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
VFVA Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

COWS vs. VFVA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF (COWS) and Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF (VFVA). 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.

	COWS	VFVA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.40	-0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	3.49	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.42	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.65	4.19	+0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.02	14.15	+0.86

COWS vs. VFVA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COWS Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the VFVA Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COWS and VFVA, 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

COWS vs. VFVA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COWS drawdown since its inception was -24.76%, smaller than the maximum VFVA drawdown of -48.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COWS and VFVA.

Drawdown Indicators

	COWS	VFVA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.76%	-48.58%	+23.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.44%	-8.55%	+2.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.07%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.59%	-1.29%	-0.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.77%	-7.24%	+3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	2.52%	-0.53%

Volatility

COWS vs. VFVA - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF (COWS) has a higher volatility of 5.17% compared to Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF (VFVA) at 4.31%. This indicates that COWS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFVA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COWS	VFVA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.17%	4.31%	+0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.87%	10.12%	+0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.20%	14.96%	+1.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.71%	20.05%	-1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.71%	24.20%	-5.49%

COWS vs. VFVA - Expense Ratio Comparison

COWS has a 0.00% expense ratio, which is lower than VFVA's 0.13% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

COWS vs. VFVA - Dividend Comparison

COWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.46%, less than VFVA's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
COWS Amplify Cash Flow Dividend Leaders ETF	1.46%	2.04%	2.08%	0.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VFVA Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF	1.77%	2.13%	2.40%	2.45%	2.21%	1.68%	2.04%	2.08%	1.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COWS and VFVA in my portfolio?

COWS and VFVA have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, COWS or VFVA?

COWS has higher volatility (5.17%) compared to VFVA (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COWS dropped -24.76% vs VFVA's -48.58%.

Which ETF is better, COWS or VFVA?

On 1-year performance, VFVA leads with 37.96% vs 32.48% for COWS. On fees, COWS is cheaper at 0.00% per year. On volatility, VFVA has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, COWS or VFVA?

Over the 1-year period, VFVA has performed better with a 37.96% return vs 32.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, COWS or VFVA?

COWS is cheaper with a 0.00% expense ratio, compared with 0.13% for VFVA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, COWS or VFVA?

VFVA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.46% for COWS.

What is the main difference between COWS and VFVA?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.00% for COWS and 0.13% for VFVA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VFVA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 1.85), 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.