PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FVAL vs. GCOW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FVAL vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FVAL achieves a 11.14% return, which is significantly lower than GCOW's 12.18% return.


FVAL

1D
-0.59%
1M
5.54%
YTD
11.14%
6M
12.79%
1Y
31.42%
3Y*
20.96%
5Y*
12.53%
10Y*

GCOW

1D
-0.56%
1M
0.09%
YTD
12.18%
6M
13.23%
1Y
27.12%
3Y*
17.41%
5Y*
12.34%
10Y*
9.91%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FVAL vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FVAL
Fidelity Value Factor ETF
11.14%19.56%18.05%23.10%-14.40%30.33%9.08%30.33%-7.87%22.49%
GCOW
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF
12.18%27.34%3.52%13.95%5.49%14.58%-4.33%17.81%-7.99%20.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FVAL and GCOW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.52

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2016

0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between FVAL and GCOW has dropped to 0.40 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FVAL vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FVAL
GCOW

Technology

32.6%
0.9%

Financial Services

11.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
4.6%

Communication Services

9.4%
14.6%

Healthcare

9.3%
14.6%

Industrials

8.1%
12.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.3%
17.1%

Energy

4.1%
24.4%

Real Estate

2.4%

-

Basic Materials

1.9%
7.3%

Utilities

1.8%
4.1%

Technology

FVAL
32.6%
GCOW
0.9%

Financial Services

FVAL
11.4%
GCOW

-

Consumer Cyclical

FVAL
9.9%
GCOW
4.6%

Communication Services

FVAL
9.4%
GCOW
14.6%

Healthcare

FVAL
9.3%
GCOW
14.6%

Industrials

FVAL
8.1%
GCOW
12.4%

Consumer Defensive

FVAL
4.3%
GCOW
17.1%

Energy

FVAL
4.1%
GCOW
24.4%

Real Estate

FVAL
2.4%
GCOW

-

Basic Materials

FVAL
1.9%
GCOW
7.3%

Utilities

FVAL
1.8%
GCOW
4.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FVAL vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FVAL
FVAL Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
FVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
FVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
FVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
FVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

GCOW
GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FVAL vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL) 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.


FVALGCOWDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.73

2.52

+0.21

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.78

3.63

+0.16

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.44

+0.05

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.54

5.71

-2.18

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

15.80

15.05

+0.75

FVAL vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FVAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FVAL 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FVALGCOWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.73

2.52

+0.21

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.76

0.92

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.81

0.59

+0.22

Drawdowns

FVAL vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FVAL drawdown since its inception was -37.26%, roughly equal to the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FVAL and GCOW.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FVALGCOWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.26%

-37.64%

+0.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.92%

-4.77%

-4.15%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.39%

-12.35%

-6.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.42%

-21.48%

-1.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.75%

-2.73%

+1.98%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.58%

-5.84%

+1.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.99%

1.81%

+0.18%

Volatility

FVAL vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL) is 2.70%, while Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) has a volatility of 2.85%. This indicates that FVAL 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FVALGCOWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.70%

2.85%

-0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.64%

7.99%

+0.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.56%

10.81%

+0.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.48%

13.49%

+2.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.11%

16.20%

+1.91%

FVAL vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FVAL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

FVAL vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

FVAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, less than GCOW's 4.43% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
FVAL
Fidelity Value Factor ETF
1.49%1.61%1.60%1.69%1.79%1.41%1.61%1.77%2.06%1.62%0.45%
GCOW
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF
4.43%4.06%5.14%5.28%4.39%4.23%4.12%4.40%3.94%2.79%1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


FVAL and GCOW have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GCOW has higher volatility (2.85%) compared to FVAL (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FVAL dropped -37.26% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

On 5-year performance, FVAL leads with 12.53% vs 12.34% for GCOW. On fees, FVAL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FVAL has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FVAL has performed better with a 12.53% return vs 12.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FVAL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.43%, compared with 1.49% for FVAL.

FVAL tracks Fidelity U.S. Value Factor Index, while GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FVAL and 0.60% for GCOW.

FVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.52), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FVAL and GCOW

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer