GCOW vs. FNDF

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) and FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while FNDF is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity Developed ex US Large Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GCOW returned 9.64%/yr vs 11.26%/yr for FNDF. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GCOW charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDF.

Performance

GCOW vs. FNDF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCOW achieves a 11.22% return, which is significantly lower than FNDF's 16.35% return. Over the past 10 years, GCOW has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 9.64%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.26% annualized return.

GCOW

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: -1.46%
• YTD: 11.22%
• 6M: 12.99%
• 1Y: 25.95%
• 3Y*: 16.97%
• 5Y*: 12.15%
• 10Y*: 9.64%

FNDF

• 1D: -3.82%
• 1M: -1.22%
• YTD: 16.35%
• 6M: 19.16%
• 1Y: 38.41%
• 3Y*: 22.22%
• 5Y*: 12.43%
• 10Y*: 11.26%

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

GCOW vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	11.22%	27.34%	3.52%	13.95%	5.49%	14.58%	-4.33%	17.81%	-7.99%	20.71%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF	16.35%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%

Correlation

The correlation between GCOW and FNDF is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016	0.86

The correlation between GCOW and FNDF shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.86 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GCOW vs. FNDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GCOW	FNDF
Energy	24.4%	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	17.1%	6.9%
Healthcare	14.6%	5.5%
Communication Services	14.6%	4.9%
Industrials	12.4%	15.9%
Basic Materials	7.3%	11.3%
Consumer Cyclical	4.6%	10.7%
Utilities	4.1%	3.8%
Technology	0.9%	11.1%
Financial Services	-	16.7%
Real Estate	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

GCOW vs. FNDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 79
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 72
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 76

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 75
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

GCOW vs. FNDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF). 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.

	GCOW	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	2.48	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.46	3.20	+0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.45	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.47	3.64	+1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.23	13.83	+0.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GCOW vs. FNDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCOW Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCOW and FNDF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GCOW	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40	2.48	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	0.77	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	0.64	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.52	+0.07

Drawdowns

GCOW vs. FNDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCOW drawdown since its inception was -37.64%, smaller than the maximum FNDF drawdown of -40.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOW and FNDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GCOW	FNDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.64%	-40.14%	+2.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.77%	-10.60%	+5.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.35%	-13.89%	+1.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.48%	-25.56%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.64%	-40.14%	+2.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-4.66%	+1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.84%	-7.64%	+1.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.83%	2.79%	-0.96%

Volatility

GCOW vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is 2.90%, while Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) has a volatility of 6.15%. This indicates that GCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GCOW	FNDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.90%	6.15%	-3.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.03%	13.17%	-5.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.84%	15.55%	-4.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.49%	16.27%	-2.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.20%	17.71%	-1.51%

GCOW vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCOW has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDF's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCOW vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.73%, more than FNDF's 2.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF	2.95%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.73%	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

Can I hold both GCOW and FNDF in my portfolio?

GCOW and FNDF have a correlation of 0.71, 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 FNDF?

FNDF has higher volatility (6.15%) compared to GCOW (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOW dropped -37.64% vs FNDF's -40.14%.

Which ETF is better, GCOW or FNDF?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.26% vs 9.64% for GCOW. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% 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, GCOW or FNDF?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.26% return vs 9.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GCOW or FNDF?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.73%, compared with 2.95% for FNDF.

What is the main difference between GCOW and FNDF?

GCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while FNDF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while FNDF tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity Developed ex US Large Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCOW and 0.25% for FNDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 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.