MCOW vs. FLDZ

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

MCOW (Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. MCOW is passively managed, while FLDZ is actively managed. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FLDZ.

Performance

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (MCOW) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with MCOW having a 7.69% return and FLDZ slightly higher at 7.72%.

MCOW

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 0.65%
• YTD: 7.69%
• 6M: 5.42%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLDZ

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: 2.42%
• YTD: 7.72%
• 6M: 6.10%
• 1Y: 11.13%
• 3Y*: 13.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MCOW Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	7.69%	-3.62%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	7.72%	-1.08%

Correlation

The correlation between MCOW and FLDZ is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2025	0.73

Return for Risk

MCOW vs. FLDZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCOW

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 32
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (MCOW) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). 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.

	MCOW	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.98	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.46	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.17	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.79	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	5.42	—

Drawdowns

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCOW drawdown since its inception was -15.02%, smaller than the maximum FLDZ drawdown of -19.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCOW and FLDZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCOW	FLDZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.02%	-19.54%	+4.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-6.25%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	0.00%	-1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.43%	-5.91%	+1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.06%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MCOW	FLDZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.95%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.90%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.96%	11.44%	+6.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.96%	16.84%	+1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.96%	16.84%	+1.12%

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDZ's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCOW vs. FLDZ - Dividend Comparison

MCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than FLDZ's 1.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.43%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%
MCOW Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	0.21%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCOW and FLDZ in my portfolio?

MCOW and FLDZ have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MCOW or FLDZ?

On fees, MCOW is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCOW or FLDZ?

MCOW is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCOW or FLDZ?

FLDZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.21% for MCOW.

What is the main difference between MCOW and FLDZ?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MCOW and 0.77% for FLDZ.