LCOW vs. FLRT

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

LCOW (Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and FLRT (Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCOW is a Quality Factor fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while FLRT is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by Pacer. LCOW is passively managed, while FLRT is actively managed. Over the past year, LCOW returned 19.31% vs 5.09% for FLRT. Their 0.42 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FLRT.

Performance

LCOW vs. FLRT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) and Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCOW achieves a 8.56% return, which is significantly higher than FLRT's 2.39% return.

LCOW

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 1.05%
• 6M: 8.03%
• YTD: 8.56%
• 1Y: 19.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.36%

FLRT

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: 2.08%
• YTD: 2.39%
• 1Y: 5.09%
• 3Y*: 7.87%
• 5Y*: 6.08%
• 10Y*: 4.83%
• ALL TIME*: 4.48%

*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)
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	$4.88M	$4.59M	$4.78M
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	$104.13K	$83.33K	$122.50K

LCOW vs. FLRT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	8.56%	20.51%
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	2.39%	5.75%

Correlation

The correlation between LCOW and FLRT is 0.43, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2025	0.42

Return for Risk

LCOW vs. FLRT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCOW

LCOW Risk / Return Rank: 58
LCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
LCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 57
LCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
LCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 59

FLRT

FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 91
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

LCOW vs. FLRT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) and Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT). 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.

	LCOW	FLRT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	3.45	-2.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	5.15	-3.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.76	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.75	2.89	-1.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.12	10.59	-3.47

LCOW vs. FLRT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is lower than the FLRT Sharpe Ratio of 3.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCOW and FLRT, 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

LCOW vs. FLRT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCOW drawdown since its inception was -10.34%, smaller than the maximum FLRT drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCOW and FLRT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCOW	FLRT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.34%	-20.96%	+10.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-1.78%	-8.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.87%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.60%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.83%	0.00%	-0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.38%	-1.39%	+0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.54%	0.48%	+2.06%

Volatility

LCOW vs. FLRT - Volatility Comparison

Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) has a higher volatility of 2.89% compared to Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT) at 0.29%. This indicates that LCOW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCOW	FLRT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.89%	0.29%	+2.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.71%	1.19%	+8.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.50%	1.49%	+11.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.38%	2.30%	+10.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.38%	6.09%	+6.29%

LCOW vs. FLRT - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FLRT's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCOW vs. FLRT - Dividend Comparison

LCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, less than FLRT's 6.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	6.72%	6.93%	7.93%	8.40%	5.81%	3.16%	3.52%	4.30%	3.95%	3.20%	3.38%	3.21%
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	0.62%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCOW and FLRT in my portfolio?

LCOW and FLRT have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCOW or FLRT?

LCOW has higher volatility (2.89%) compared to FLRT (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCOW dropped -10.34% vs FLRT's -20.96%.

Which ETF is better, LCOW or FLRT?

On 1-year performance, LCOW leads with 19.31% vs 5.09% for FLRT. On fees, LCOW is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCOW or FLRT?

Over the 1-year period, LCOW has performed better with a 19.31% return vs 5.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCOW or FLRT?

LCOW is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FLRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCOW or FLRT?

FLRT has the higher dividend yield at 6.72%, compared with 0.62% for LCOW.

What is the main difference between LCOW and FLRT?

LCOW is categorized as Quality Factor, while FLRT is Bank Loan. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for LCOW and 0.60% for FLRT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.45 vs 1.45), 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.