GCOW vs. BGIG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. GCOW is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, GCOW returned 27.77% vs 21.92% for BGIG. Their 0.59 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GCOW charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

GCOW vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GCOW having a 14.77% return and BGIG slightly lower at 14.06%.

GCOW

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: 5.47%
• 6M: 7.25%
• YTD: 14.77%
• 1Y: 27.77%
• 3Y*: 16.05%
• 5Y*: 13.35%
• 10Y*: 9.89%
• ALL TIME*: 10.57%

BGIG

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 1.70%
• 6M: 10.58%
• YTD: 14.06%
• 1Y: 21.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.54%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	$4.13M	$3.60M	$4.30M
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	$12.71M	$12.72M	$12.45M

GCOW vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	14.77%	27.34%	3.52%	3.13%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	14.06%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%

Correlation

The correlation between GCOW and BGIG is 0.58, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.59

The correlation between GCOW and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

GCOW vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GCOW	BGIG
Consumer Defensive	22.3%	6.1%
Healthcare	17.1%	16.8%
Communication Services	15.0%	1.2%
Energy	11.7%	10.0%
Industrials	10.7%	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	4.9%
Utilities	6.8%	7.3%
Basic Materials	3.6%	0.6%
Technology	2.9%	24.2%
Financial Services	-	14.5%
Real Estate	-	3.7%

Return for Risk

GCOW vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 90
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 83

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 91
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 91
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 90

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GCOW vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	2.41	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.73	3.45	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.43	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	3.69	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	14.43	-3.29

GCOW vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCOW Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCOW and BGIG, 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

GCOW vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCOW drawdown since its inception was -37.64%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOW and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCOW	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.64%	-13.24%	-24.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.83%	-5.81%	-2.02%
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	-0.73%	-0.08%	-0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.82%	-1.69%	-4.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	1.48%	+1.05%

Volatility

GCOW vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) has a higher volatility of 3.59% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.07%. This indicates that GCOW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCOW	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.59%	2.07%	+1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.54%	6.73%	+1.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.99%	8.95%	+2.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.55%	11.75%	+1.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.00%	11.75%	+4.25%

GCOW vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCOW has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCOW vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than BGIG's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.69%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.58%	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 GCOW and BGIG in my portfolio?

GCOW and BGIG 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, GCOW or BGIG?

GCOW has higher volatility (3.59%) compared to BGIG (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOW dropped -37.64% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, GCOW or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, GCOW leads with 27.77% vs 21.92% for BGIG. On fees, BGIG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GCOW or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 27.77% return vs 21.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCOW or BGIG?

BGIG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 1.69% for BGIG.

What is the main difference between GCOW and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCOW and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 2.40), 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.