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

Performance

GCOW vs. SRVR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Pacer Data & Infrastructure Real Estate ETF (SRVR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GCOW having a 9.34% return and SRVR slightly lower at 9.16%.


GCOW

1D
0.36%
1M
-3.02%
6M
7.13%
YTD
9.34%
1Y
19.99%
3Y*
14.71%
5Y*
12.16%
10Y*
9.38%

SRVR

1D
-1.46%
1M
-7.99%
6M
4.54%
YTD
9.16%
1Y
-0.06%
3Y*
3.87%
5Y*
-3.29%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCOW vs. SRVR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
GCOW
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF
9.34%27.34%3.52%13.95%5.49%14.58%-4.33%17.81%-7.61%
SRVR
Pacer Data & Infrastructure Real Estate ETF
9.16%-1.99%2.70%6.84%-31.90%22.31%11.99%41.98%-3.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GCOW and SRVR is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.41

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

0.50

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

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2018

0.48

The correlation between GCOW and SRVR shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.53 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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. SRVR — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCOW
GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank

SRVR
SRVR Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
SRVR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SRVR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
Sortino Ratio Rank
SRVR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
Omega Ratio Rank
SRVR Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
SRVR Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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.

GCOW vs. SRVR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) and Pacer Data & Infrastructure Real Estate ETF (SRVR). 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.


GCOWSRVRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.81

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.01

+0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.56

-0.00

+2.57

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.08

-0.01

+8.09

GCOW vs. SRVR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.80, which is higher than the SRVR Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCOW and SRVR, 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...

Drawdowns

GCOW vs. SRVR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCOW drawdown since its inception was -37.64%, smaller than the maximum SRVR drawdown of -40.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCOW and SRVR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GCOWSRVRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.64%

-40.99%

+3.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.83%

-14.78%

+6.95%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.35%

-18.34%

+5.99%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.48%

-40.99%

+19.51%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.20%

-20.07%

+14.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.83%

-15.26%

+9.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.48%

7.40%

-4.92%

Volatility

GCOW vs. SRVR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is 4.09%, while Pacer Data & Infrastructure Real Estate ETF (SRVR) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that GCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SRVR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GCOWSRVRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.09%

4.48%

-0.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.59%

14.02%

-5.43%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.15%

17.27%

-6.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.53%

19.84%

-6.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.99%

21.42%

-5.43%

GCOW vs. SRVR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCOW has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SRVR's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

GCOW vs. SRVR - Dividend Comparison

GCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.81%, more than SRVR's 2.80% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
GCOW
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF
4.81%4.06%5.14%5.28%4.39%4.23%4.12%4.40%3.94%2.79%1.95%
SRVR
Pacer Data & Infrastructure Real Estate ETF
2.80%2.67%2.00%3.69%1.70%1.19%1.59%1.61%2.13%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GCOW and SRVR have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SRVR has higher volatility (4.48%) compared to GCOW (4.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GCOW dropped -37.64% vs SRVR's -40.99%.

On 5-year performance, GCOW leads with 12.16% vs -3.29% for SRVR. On fees, SRVR is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 4.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 12.16% return vs -3.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SRVR is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.81%, compared with 2.80% for SRVR.

GCOW is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while SRVR is REIT. GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index, while SRVR tracks FTSE Nareit All Equity REITs Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCOW and 0.49% for SRVR.

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs -0.00), 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 GCOW and SRVR

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