GCOW vs. QDPL
GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) and QDPL (Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while QDPL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Pacer. GCOW is passively managed, while QDPL is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GCOW returned 17.41%/yr vs 20.64%/yr for QDPL. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.
Performance
GCOW vs. QDPL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GCOW achieves a 12.18% return, which is significantly higher than QDPL's 10.40% return.
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%
QDPL
- 1D
- -0.65%
- 1M
- 5.23%
- YTD
- 10.40%
- 6M
- 10.54%
- 1Y
- 26.37%
- 3Y*
- 20.64%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GCOW vs. QDPL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF | 12.18% | 27.34% | 3.52% | 13.95% | 5.49% | 2.62% |
QDPL Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF | 10.40% | 16.52% | 22.83% | 23.66% | -16.25% | 8.32% |
Correlation
The correlation between GCOW and QDPL is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021 | 0.54 |
Over the past year, the correlation between GCOW and QDPL has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.54, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
GCOW vs. QDPL - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GCOW
QDPL
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Communication Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Utilities
Technology
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Energy
GCOW
QDPL
Consumer Defensive
GCOW
QDPL
Healthcare
GCOW
QDPL
Communication Services
GCOW
QDPL
Industrials
GCOW
QDPL
Basic Materials
GCOW
QDPL
Consumer Cyclical
GCOW
QDPL
Utilities
GCOW
QDPL
Technology
GCOW
QDPL
Financial Services
GCOW
-
QDPL
Real Estate
GCOW
-
QDPL
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. QDPL — Risk / Return Rank
GCOW
QDPL
GCOW vs. QDPL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF (QDPL). 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 | QDPL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.44 | 1.41 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.71 | 3.06 | +2.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.05 | 14.37 | +0.67 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GCOW | QDPL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.52 | 2.23 | +0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.59 | 0.83 | -0.24 |
Drawdowns
GCOW vs. QDPL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GCOW drawdown since its inception was -37.64%, which is greater than QDPL's maximum drawdown of -22.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOW and QDPL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GCOW | QDPL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.64% | -22.59% | -15.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.77% | -8.65% | +3.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.35% | -17.75% | +5.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.48% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.64% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.73% | -0.65% | -2.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.84% | -5.14% | -0.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.81% | 1.84% | -0.03% |
Volatility
GCOW vs. QDPL - Volatility Comparison
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) has a higher volatility of 2.85% compared to Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF (QDPL) at 2.69%. This indicates that GCOW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QDPL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GCOW | QDPL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.85% | 2.69% | +0.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.99% | 9.00% | -1.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.81% | 11.89% | -1.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.49% | 15.01% | -1.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.20% | 15.01% | +1.19% |
GCOW vs. QDPL - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both GCOW and QDPL have an expense ratio of 0.60%.
Dividends
GCOW vs. QDPL - Dividend Comparison
GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.43%, less than QDPL's 5.05% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
QDPL Pacer Metaurus US Large Cap Dividend Multiplier 400 ETF | 5.05% | 4.84% | 5.43% | 6.30% | 7.27% | 2.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GCOW and QDPL have a correlation of 0.31, 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 QDPL (2.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOW dropped -37.64% vs QDPL's -22.59%.
On 3-year performance, QDPL leads with 20.64% vs 17.41% for GCOW. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, QDPL has been the lower-risk option at 2.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, QDPL has performed better with a 20.64% return vs 17.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GCOW and QDPL have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.
QDPL has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 4.43% for GCOW.
GCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while QDPL is Large Cap Blend Equities.
GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.52 vs 2.23), 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 QDPL
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