GCOW vs. AMLP
GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) and AMLP (Alerian MLP ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while AMLP is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GCOW returned 10.32%/yr vs 6.92%/yr for AMLP. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GCOW charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for AMLP.
Performance
GCOW vs. AMLP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GCOW achieves a 12.75% return, which is significantly lower than AMLP's 15.29% return. Over the past 10 years, GCOW has outperformed AMLP with an annualized return of 10.32%, while AMLP has yielded a comparatively lower 6.92% annualized return.
GCOW
- 1D
- 0.22%
- 1M
- 0.09%
- YTD
- 12.75%
- 6M
- 13.53%
- 1Y
- 24.86%
- 3Y*
- 16.79%
- 5Y*
- 12.37%
- 10Y*
- 10.32%
AMLP
- 1D
- -0.34%
- 1M
- -3.55%
- YTD
- 15.29%
- 6M
- 14.35%
- 1Y
- 15.02%
- 3Y*
- 20.22%
- 5Y*
- 15.26%
- 10Y*
- 6.92%
GCOW vs. AMLP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF | 12.75% | 27.34% | 3.52% | 13.95% | 5.49% | 14.58% | -4.33% | 17.81% | -7.99% | 20.71% |
AMLP Alerian MLP ETF | 15.29% | 5.78% | 22.76% | 21.40% | 25.47% | 39.09% | -32.26% | 5.99% | -12.67% | -7.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between GCOW and AMLP is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 23, 2016 | 0.53 |
Over the past year, the correlation between GCOW and AMLP has dropped to 0.33 - well below their long-term average of 0.53, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
GCOW vs. AMLP - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GCOW
AMLP
Energy
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Communication Services
-
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Utilities
Technology
-
Financial Services
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Energy
GCOW
AMLP
Consumer Defensive
GCOW
AMLP
-
Healthcare
GCOW
AMLP
-
Communication Services
GCOW
AMLP
-
Industrials
GCOW
AMLP
-
Basic Materials
GCOW
AMLP
-
Consumer Cyclical
GCOW
AMLP
-
Utilities
GCOW
AMLP
Technology
GCOW
AMLP
-
Financial Services
GCOW
-
AMLP
-
Real Estate
GCOW
-
AMLP
-
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
GCOW vs. AMLP — Risk / Return Rank
GCOW
AMLP
GCOW vs. AMLP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP). 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.
| GCOW | AMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.22 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.13 | 1.66 | +3.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.09 | 5.35 | +7.73 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GCOW vs. AMLP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GCOW drawdown since its inception was -37.64%, smaller than the maximum AMLP drawdown of -77.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOW and AMLP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GCOW | AMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.64% | -77.19% | +39.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.77% | -8.94% | +4.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.35% | -14.27% | +1.92% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.48% | -20.92% | -0.56% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.64% | -72.62% | +34.98% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.24% | -4.94% | +2.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.83% | -17.37% | +11.54% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.88% | 2.77% | -0.89% |
Volatility
GCOW vs. AMLP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is 2.45%, while Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) has a volatility of 4.71%. This indicates that GCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMLP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GCOW | AMLP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.45% | 4.71% | -2.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.96% | 8.77% | -0.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.85% | 11.84% | -0.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.49% | 19.95% | -6.46% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.17% | 27.67% | -11.50% |
GCOW vs. AMLP - Expense Ratio Comparison
GCOW has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than AMLP's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
GCOW vs. AMLP - Dividend Comparison
GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.67%, less than AMLP's 7.71% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMLP Alerian MLP ETF | 7.71% | 8.36% | 7.70% | 7.86% | 7.70% | 8.55% | 12.31% | 9.12% | 9.29% | 7.97% | 8.09% | 9.84% |
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF | 4.67% | 4.06% | 5.14% | 5.28% | 4.39% | 4.23% | 4.12% | 4.40% | 3.94% | 2.79% | 1.95% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GCOW and AMLP have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AMLP has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to GCOW (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOW dropped -37.64% vs AMLP's -77.19%.
On 10-year performance, GCOW leads with 10.32% vs 6.92% for AMLP. On fees, GCOW is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 10.32% return vs 6.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GCOW is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for AMLP.
AMLP has the higher dividend yield at 7.71%, compared with 4.67% for GCOW.
GCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while AMLP is MLPs. GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while AMLP tracks Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCOW and 0.90% for AMLP.
GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.25), 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.
Find the right allocation for GCOW and AMLP
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