FFLV vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FFLV (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. FFLV is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, FFLV returned 27.22% vs 20.36% for GCOW. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFLV charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

FFLV vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLV achieves a 13.08% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 6.79% return.

FFLV

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 13.08%
• 6M: 11.82%
• 1Y: 27.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: -6.48%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 6.55%
• 1Y: 20.36%
• 3Y*: 15.39%
• 5Y*: 11.60%
• 10Y*: 9.89%

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

FFLV vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FFLV Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF	13.08%	16.04%	-0.71%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	6.79%	27.34%	4.39%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLV and GCOW is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2024	0.62

The correlation between FFLV and GCOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FFLV vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLV

FFLV Risk / Return Rank: 82
FFLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FFLV Omega Ratio Rank: 80
FFLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FFLV Martin Ratio Rank: 82

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 61
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 58
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

FFLV vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). 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.

	FFLV	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.37	1.84	+0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	2.65	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.32	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.78	2.76	+1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.65	9.79	+4.87

FFLV vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLV Sharpe Ratio is 2.37, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLV and GCOW, 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

FFLV vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLV drawdown since its inception was -16.71%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLV and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLV	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.71%	-37.64%	+20.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.24%	-7.40%	+0.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	-7.40%	+6.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-5.83%	+2.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	2.09%	-0.23%

Volatility

FFLV vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) has a higher volatility of 3.15% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.90%. This indicates that FFLV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLV	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.15%	2.90%	+0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.58%	8.31%	+0.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.55%	11.10%	+0.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.14%	13.50%	+1.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.14%	16.03%	-0.89%

FFLV vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLV has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLV vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

FFLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, less than GCOW's 4.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FFLV Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF	1.42%	1.60%	1.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.93%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLV and GCOW in my portfolio?

FFLV and GCOW have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLV or GCOW?

FFLV has higher volatility (3.15%) compared to GCOW (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLV dropped -16.71% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, FFLV or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, FFLV leads with 27.22% vs 20.36% for GCOW. On fees, FFLV is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLV or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, FFLV has performed better with a 27.22% return vs 20.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLV or GCOW?

FFLV is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFLV or GCOW?

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.93%, compared with 1.42% for FFLV.

What is the main difference between FFLV and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLV and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.84), 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.