LCOW vs. PHDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCOW (Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and PHDG (Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCOW is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while PHDG is a Equity Hedged fund tracking the S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LCOW returned 21.09% vs 25.21% for PHDG. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for PHDG.

Performance

LCOW vs. PHDG - 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 Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCOW achieves a 6.58% return, which is significantly lower than PHDG's 13.79% return.

LCOW

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 5.51%
• YTD: 6.58%
• 6M: 6.94%
• 1Y: 21.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PHDG

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 4.88%
• YTD: 13.79%
• 6M: 11.91%
• 1Y: 25.21%
• 3Y*: 10.77%
• 5Y*: 5.45%
• 10Y*: 7.22%

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

LCOW vs. PHDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	6.58%	20.51%
PHDG Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF	13.79%	13.67%

Correlation

The correlation between LCOW and PHDG is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2025	0.65

The correlation between LCOW and PHDG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LCOW vs. PHDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCOW

LCOW Risk / Return Rank: 49
LCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
LCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
LCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 49
LCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
LCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

PHDG

PHDG Risk / Return Rank: 90
PHDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
PHDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
PHDG Omega Ratio Rank: 85
PHDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
PHDG Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. PHDG - 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 Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG). 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.

	LCOW	PHDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	2.88	-1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	4.23	-1.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.53	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.05	7.19	-5.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.61	26.70	-18.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCOW vs. PHDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is lower than the PHDG Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCOW and PHDG, 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

	LCOW	PHDG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.76	2.88	-1.12
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.15	0.53	+1.61

Drawdowns

LCOW vs. PHDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCOW drawdown since its inception was -10.34%, smaller than the maximum PHDG drawdown of -17.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCOW and PHDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCOW	PHDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.34%	-17.70%	+7.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-3.52%	-6.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.78%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.55%	-0.87%	+0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.38%	-6.25%	+4.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	0.95%	+1.51%

Volatility

LCOW vs. PHDG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) is 2.29%, while Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG) has a volatility of 3.07%. This indicates that LCOW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PHDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCOW	PHDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	3.07%	-0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.17%	6.64%	+2.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.05%	8.81%	+3.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.32%	10.92%	+1.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.32%	11.92%	+0.40%

LCOW vs. PHDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than PHDG's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCOW vs. PHDG - Dividend Comparison

LCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.50%, less than PHDG's 1.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	0.50%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PHDG Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF	1.86%	2.10%	1.94%	1.93%	1.35%	0.44%	0.63%	1.80%	1.56%	1.83%	2.29%	1.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCOW and PHDG in my portfolio?

LCOW and PHDG have a correlation of 0.64, 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 PHDG?

PHDG has higher volatility (3.07%) compared to LCOW (2.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCOW dropped -10.34% vs PHDG's -17.70%.

Which ETF is better, LCOW or PHDG?

On 1-year performance, PHDG leads with 25.21% vs 21.09% for LCOW. On fees, PHDG is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, LCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCOW or PHDG?

Over the 1-year period, PHDG has performed better with a 25.21% return vs 21.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCOW or PHDG?

PHDG is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for LCOW.

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

PHDG has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 0.50% for LCOW.

What is the main difference between LCOW and PHDG?

LCOW is categorized as S&P 500, while PHDG is Equity Hedged. LCOW tracks S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while PHDG tracks S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for LCOW and 0.39% for PHDG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PHDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.88 vs 1.76), 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.