LCOW vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

LCOW (Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCOW is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. LCOW is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, LCOW returned 19.74% vs 264.10% for MSTZ. At a correlation of -0.38, they often move in opposite directions. LCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

LCOW vs. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCOW achieves a 8.61% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -26.97% return.

LCOW

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 3.46%
• 6M: 7.43%
• YTD: 8.61%
• 1Y: 19.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MSTZ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 39.32%
• 6M: -19.19%
• YTD: -26.97%
• 1Y: 264.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCOW vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	8.61%	20.51%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-26.97%	240.62%

Correlation

The correlation between LCOW and MSTZ is -0.38, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2025	-0.38

Return for Risk

LCOW vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCOW

LCOW Risk / Return Rank: 53
LCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
LCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 54
LCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
LCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 55

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 60
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 63
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

LCOW vs. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.64	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.34	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.30	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	2.86	-1.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.47	5.59	+1.88

LCOW vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCOW and MSTZ, 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. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCOW drawdown since its inception was -10.34%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCOW and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCOW	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.34%	-99.38%	+89.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-84.89%	+74.55%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-97.51%	+97.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.39%	-94.53%	+93.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	43.41%	-40.89%

Volatility

LCOW vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) is 3.79%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 56.46%. This indicates that LCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCOW	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	56.46%	-52.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.84%	135.20%	-125.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.33%	148.41%	-136.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.46%	171.17%	-158.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.46%	171.17%	-158.71%

LCOW vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCOW vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

LCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	0.62%	0.43%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCOW and MSTZ in my portfolio?

LCOW and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.38, 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 MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (56.46%) compared to LCOW (3.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCOW dropped -10.34% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, LCOW or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 264.10% vs 19.74% for LCOW. On fees, LCOW is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, LCOW has been the lower-risk option at 3.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCOW or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 264.10% return vs 19.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCOW or MSTZ?

LCOW is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

LCOW has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between LCOW and MSTZ?

LCOW is categorized as S&P 500, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for LCOW and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.53), 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.