EAFG vs. ICOW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EAFG (Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and ICOW (Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds from Pacer - EAFG tracks the Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index while ICOW tracks the Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EAFG returned 24.38% vs 27.98% for ICOW. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.65% expense ratio.

Performance

EAFG vs. ICOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) and Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EAFG achieves a 11.36% return, which is significantly higher than ICOW's 8.64% return.

EAFG

• 1D: -3.66%
• 1M: 1.71%
• YTD: 11.36%
• 6M: 10.83%
• 1Y: 24.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ICOW

• 1D: -2.08%
• 1M: -6.45%
• YTD: 8.64%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 27.98%
• 3Y*: 16.87%
• 5Y*: 8.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

EAFG vs. ICOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	11.36%	26.39%	-5.92%
ICOW Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF	8.64%	36.95%	-4.40%

Correlation

The correlation between EAFG and ICOW is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.73

The correlation between EAFG and ICOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

EAFG vs. ICOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EAFG	ICOW
Technology	21.2%	7.8%
Basic Materials	17.0%	5.6%
Industrials	15.1%	29.1%
Healthcare	11.2%	6.7%
Communication Services	9.5%	8.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	12.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	8.1%
Energy	2.4%	21.3%
Utilities	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.5%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EAFG vs. ICOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAFG

EAFG Risk / Return Rank: 41
EAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
EAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
EAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 46

ICOW

ICOW Risk / Return Rank: 63
ICOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ICOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ICOW Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ICOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
ICOW 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.

EAFG vs. ICOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) and Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW). 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.

	EAFG	ICOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	1.91	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	2.52	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.34	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.93	3.51	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.06	11.46	-4.40

EAFG vs. ICOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the ICOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAFG and ICOW, 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

EAFG vs. ICOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAFG drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, smaller than the maximum ICOW drawdown of -43.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAFG and ICOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAFG	ICOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.47%	-43.49%	+27.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.71%	-8.02%	-4.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.81%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.66%	-8.01%	+4.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.16%	-7.56%	+4.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	2.45%	+1.01%

Volatility

EAFG vs. ICOW - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF (ICOW) at 5.85%. This indicates that EAFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EAFG	ICOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	5.85%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.20%	11.90%	+4.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.51%	14.75%	+3.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.69%	16.77%	+0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	18.51%	-0.82%

EAFG vs. ICOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EAFG and ICOW have an expense ratio of 0.65%.

Dividends

EAFG vs. ICOW - Dividend Comparison

EAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, less than ICOW's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	1.96%	1.31%	1.99%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICOW Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 ETF	2.35%	3.03%	4.39%	3.61%	5.26%	2.11%	2.46%	3.10%	2.61%	0.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAFG and ICOW in my portfolio?

EAFG and ICOW have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EAFG or ICOW?

EAFG has higher volatility (7.56%) compared to ICOW (5.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAFG dropped -16.47% vs ICOW's -43.49%.

Which ETF is better, EAFG or ICOW?

On 1-year performance, ICOW leads with 27.98% vs 24.38% for EAFG. Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. On volatility, ICOW has been the lower-risk option at 5.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EAFG or ICOW?

Over the 1-year period, ICOW has performed better with a 27.98% return vs 24.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAFG or ICOW?

EAFG and ICOW have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EAFG or ICOW?

ICOW has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 1.96% for EAFG.

What is the main difference between EAFG and ICOW?

EAFG tracks Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while ICOW tracks Pacer Developed Markets International Cash Cows 100 Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.33), 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.