FLCV vs. GCOW

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FLCV (Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. FLCV is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, FLCV returned 23.42% vs 22.60% for GCOW. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCV charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

FLCV vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF (FLCV) 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, FLCV achieves a 16.55% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 10.82% return.

FLCV

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: 1.63%
• 6M: 13.24%
• YTD: 16.55%
• 1Y: 23.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: -0.33%
• 6M: 7.66%
• YTD: 10.82%
• 1Y: 22.60%
• 3Y*: 15.50%
• 5Y*: 12.66%
• 10Y*: 9.51%

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

FLCV vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCV Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF	16.55%	15.64%	5.96%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	10.82%	27.34%	-1.62%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCV and GCOW is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2024	0.52

The correlation between FLCV and GCOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCV vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCV	GCOW
Technology	20.4%	1.3%
Financial Services	18.5%	-
Healthcare	12.3%	14.8%
Industrials	11.5%	12.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	4.8%
Communication Services	6.9%	14.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.7%	17.0%
Utilities	5.7%	4.0%
Energy	5.3%	22.9%
Real Estate	2.8%	-
Basic Materials	2.8%	8.1%

Return for Risk

FLCV vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCV

FLCV Risk / Return Rank: 83
FLCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
FLCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
FLCV Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FLCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLCV Martin Ratio Rank: 89

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 75
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 78
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

FLCV vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF (FLCV) 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.

	FLCV	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.05	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	2.99	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.36	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.13	2.90	+1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.39	8.96	+6.43

FLCV vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCV Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCV 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

FLCV vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCV drawdown since its inception was -15.93%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCV and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCV	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.93%	-37.64%	+21.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.70%	-7.83%	+2.13%
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	0.00%	-3.91%	+3.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.95%	-5.83%	+3.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.53%	2.53%	-1.00%

Volatility

FLCV vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF (FLCV) is 2.70%, while Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) has a volatility of 3.90%. This indicates that FLCV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GCOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCV	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.70%	3.90%	-1.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.56%	8.62%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.51%	11.08%	+0.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.78%	13.53%	+1.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.78%	15.99%	-1.21%

FLCV vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCV has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCV vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

FLCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.71%, less than GCOW's 4.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FLCV Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value ETF	0.71%	0.83%	0.24%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.75%	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 FLCV and GCOW in my portfolio?

FLCV and GCOW have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCV or GCOW?

GCOW has higher volatility (3.90%) compared to FLCV (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCV dropped -15.93% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, FLCV or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, FLCV leads with 23.42% vs 22.60% for GCOW. On fees, FLCV is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, FLCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCV or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, FLCV has performed better with a 23.42% return vs 22.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCV or GCOW?

FLCV is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.75%, compared with 0.71% for FLCV.

What is the main difference between FLCV and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: Federated Hermes and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for FLCV and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 2.04), 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.