MCOW vs. FTDS
MCOW (Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and FTDS (First Trust Dividend Strength ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - MCOW tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index while FTDS tracks the Dividend Strength Index. Both are passively managed. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for FTDS.
Performance
MCOW vs. FTDS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCOW achieves a 7.58% return, which is significantly higher than FTDS's 6.18% return.
MCOW
- 1D
- 0.23%
- 1M
- 2.01%
- YTD
- 7.58%
- 6M
- 5.32%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FTDS
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- -1.13%
- YTD
- 6.18%
- 6M
- 4.93%
- 1Y
- 18.57%
- 3Y*
- 15.76%
- 5Y*
- 6.66%
- 10Y*
- 10.96%
MCOW vs. FTDS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MCOW Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF | 7.58% | -3.62% |
FTDS First Trust Dividend Strength ETF | 6.18% | 1.55% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCOW and FTDS is 0.50, 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 | 0.50 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MCOW vs. FTDS — Risk / Return Rank
MCOW
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
FTDS
MCOW vs. FTDS - 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 First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS). 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 | FTDS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.25 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.84 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.28 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MCOW vs. FTDS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCOW drawdown since its inception was -15.02%, smaller than the maximum FTDS drawdown of -56.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCOW and FTDS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCOW | FTDS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.02% | -56.53% | +41.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -6.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.04% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -23.35% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.47% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.45% | -4.79% | +3.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.46% | -9.85% | +5.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.56% | — |
Volatility
MCOW vs. FTDS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCOW | FTDS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.03% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 8.66% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.96% | 13.03% | +4.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.96% | 17.63% | +0.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.96% | 20.15% | -2.19% |
MCOW vs. FTDS - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FTDS's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCOW vs. FTDS - Dividend Comparison
MCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than FTDS's 1.66% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FTDS First Trust Dividend Strength ETF | 1.66% | 1.59% | 2.05% | 2.15% | 2.31% | 0.72% | 0.99% | 1.13% | 1.14% | 0.79% | 1.24% | 0.95% |
MCOW Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF | 0.21% | 0.11% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MCOW and FTDS have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
MCOW is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FTDS.
FTDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.66%, compared with 0.21% for MCOW.
MCOW tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while FTDS tracks Dividend Strength Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MCOW and 0.70% for FTDS.
Find the right allocation for MCOW and FTDS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer