PALC vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PALC (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PALC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Lunt Capital U.S. Large Cap Multi-Factor Rotation Index, while GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PALC returned 9.43%/yr vs 11.72%/yr for GCOW. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

PALC vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) 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, PALC achieves a 10.24% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 7.34% return.

PALC

• 1D: -2.85%
• 1M: 2.12%
• YTD: 10.24%
• 6M: 9.48%
• 1Y: 19.99%
• 3Y*: 16.40%
• 5Y*: 9.43%
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.00%
• YTD: 7.34%
• 6M: 7.32%
• 1Y: 21.14%
• 3Y*: 15.59%
• 5Y*: 11.72%
• 10Y*: 9.95%

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

PALC vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	10.24%	7.28%	21.24%	17.52%	-14.74%	41.03%	23.19%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	7.34%	27.34%	3.52%	13.95%	5.49%	14.58%	18.32%

Correlation

The correlation between PALC and GCOW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2020	0.56

The correlation between PALC and GCOW shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (1 year) to 0.57 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PALC vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PALC	GCOW
Healthcare	27.1%	14.8%
Technology	21.3%	1.3%
Industrials	15.8%	12.6%
Consumer Defensive	12.5%	17.0%
Financial Services	8.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	4.8%
Energy	3.5%	22.9%
Basic Materials	2.4%	8.1%
Utilities	2.3%	4.0%
Communication Services	1.7%	14.5%
Real Estate	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

PALC vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALC

PALC Risk / Return Rank: 46
PALC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
PALC Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
PALC Omega Ratio Rank: 44
PALC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
PALC Martin Ratio Rank: 51

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 60
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 56
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

PALC vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) 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.

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.

	PALC	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.91	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	2.74	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.33	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.25	3.06	-0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.15	10.42	-2.27

PALC vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PALC Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PALC 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.

Drawdowns

PALC vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALC drawdown since its inception was -24.45%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALC and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALC	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.45%	-37.64%	+13.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.94%	-6.93%	-2.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.39%	-12.35%	-5.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.45%	-21.48%	-2.97%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.85%	-6.93%	+4.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-5.83%	-0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	2.03%	+0.43%

Volatility

PALC vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) has a higher volatility of 7.41% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.89%. This indicates that PALC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PALC	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.41%	2.89%	+4.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.87%	8.29%	+2.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.38%	11.09%	+2.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.47%	13.50%	+2.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.23%	16.03%	+1.20%

PALC vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both PALC and GCOW have an expense ratio of 0.60%.

Dividends

PALC vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

PALC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, less than GCOW's 4.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.90%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	1.06%	1.08%	0.93%	0.74%	1.69%	0.64%	0.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PALC and GCOW in my portfolio?

PALC and GCOW have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PALC or GCOW?

PALC has higher volatility (7.41%) compared to GCOW (2.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALC dropped -24.45% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, PALC or GCOW?

On 5-year performance, GCOW leads with 11.72% vs 9.43% for PALC. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PALC or GCOW?

Over the 5-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 11.72% return vs 9.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALC or GCOW?

PALC and GCOW have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.90%, compared with 1.06% for PALC.

What is the main difference between PALC and GCOW?

PALC is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while GCOW is Large Cap Value Equities. PALC tracks Lunt Capital U.S. Large Cap Multi-Factor Rotation Index, while GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.51), 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.