LYLD vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

LYLD (Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. LYLD is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, LYLD returned 22.07% vs 27.37% for GCOW. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LYLD charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

LYLD vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF (LYLD) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LYLD achieves a 9.04% return, which is significantly lower than GCOW's 12.82% return.

LYLD

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: 9.04%
• 6M: 10.59%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: -0.26%
• YTD: 12.82%
• 6M: 14.84%
• 1Y: 27.37%
• 3Y*: 17.63%
• 5Y*: 12.63%
• 10Y*: 9.98%

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

LYLD vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LYLD Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF	9.04%	12.90%	1.19%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	12.82%	27.34%	-1.02%

Correlation

The correlation between LYLD and GCOW is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2024	0.62

The correlation between LYLD and GCOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LYLD vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

LYLD

LYLD Risk / Return Rank: 56
LYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
LYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
LYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 54
LYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
LYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 55

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 80
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 73
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

LYLD vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF (LYLD) and Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW). 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.

	LYLD	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	2.55	-0.61
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	3.66	-0.82
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.44	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	5.98	-3.08
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.72	15.85	-6.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LYLD vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LYLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LYLD and GCOW, 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

	LYLD	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.94	2.55	-0.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.94	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.80	0.59	+0.20

Drawdowns

LYLD vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LYLD drawdown since its inception was -18.64%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LYLD and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	LYLD	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.64%	-37.64%	+19.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.70%	-4.77%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	-2.18%	+1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.68%	-5.84%	+2.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.29%	1.80%	+0.49%

Volatility

LYLD vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF (LYLD) is 2.24%, while Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) has a volatility of 2.94%. This indicates that LYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GCOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LYLD	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.24%	2.94%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.70%	7.97%	-0.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.43%	10.82%	+0.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.63%	13.48%	+2.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.63%	16.20%	-0.57%

LYLD vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

LYLD has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

LYLD vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

LYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.62%, less than GCOW's 4.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.41%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%
LYLD Cambria Large Cap Shareholder Yield ETF	2.62%	2.79%	0.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LYLD and GCOW in my portfolio?

LYLD and GCOW have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LYLD or GCOW?

GCOW has higher volatility (2.94%) compared to LYLD (2.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LYLD dropped -18.64% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, LYLD or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, GCOW leads with 27.37% vs 22.07% for LYLD. On fees, LYLD is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, LYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LYLD or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 27.37% return vs 22.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LYLD or GCOW?

LYLD is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LYLD or GCOW?

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.41%, compared with 2.62% for LYLD.

What is the main difference between LYLD and GCOW?

They also come from different issuers: Cambria and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for LYLD and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.94), 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.