PSFM vs. COWG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PSFM (Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF) and COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PSFM is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Pacer, while COWG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index. PSFM is actively managed, while COWG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PSFM returned 13.46%/yr vs 24.53%/yr for COWG. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PSFM charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for COWG.

Performance

PSFM vs. COWG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) and Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PSFM achieves a 9.21% return, which is significantly lower than COWG's 12.50% return.

PSFM

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 10.00%
• 1Y: 17.37%
• 3Y*: 13.46%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: —

COWG

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 8.17%
• YTD: 12.50%
• 6M: 12.76%
• 1Y: 13.36%
• 3Y*: 24.53%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PSFM vs. COWG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PSFM Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF	9.21%	7.28%	14.18%	18.32%	0.59%
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	12.50%	10.24%	34.99%	20.69%	-0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between PSFM and COWG is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 23, 2022	0.81

The correlation between PSFM and COWG shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PSFM vs. COWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PSFM	COWG
Technology	33.2%	48.5%
Financial Services	12.5%	-
Communication Services	10.3%	5.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	3.2%
Healthcare	9.6%	21.0%
Industrials	8.4%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	2.0%
Energy	4.2%	8.4%
Utilities	2.6%	1.5%
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.9%	6.5%

Return for Risk

PSFM vs. COWG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSFM

PSFM Risk / Return Rank: 98
PSFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
PSFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Omega Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
PSFM Martin Ratio Rank: 98

COWG

COWG Risk / Return Rank: 24
COWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

PSFM vs. COWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) and Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG). 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.

	PSFM	COWG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.37	0.84	+3.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.81	1.24	+6.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.03	1.15	+0.88
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	13.28	1.24	+12.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	70.48	3.64	+66.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PSFM vs. COWG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSFM Sharpe Ratio is 4.37, which is higher than the COWG Sharpe Ratio of 0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSFM and COWG, 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

	PSFM	COWG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.37	0.84	+3.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	1.18	-0.18

Drawdowns

PSFM vs. COWG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSFM drawdown since its inception was -14.33%, smaller than the maximum COWG drawdown of -23.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSFM and COWG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSFM	COWG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.33%	-23.60%	+9.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.31%	-10.79%	+9.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.12%	-23.60%	+9.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	0.00%	-0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-3.28%	+1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.25%	3.67%	-3.42%

Volatility

PSFM vs. COWG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) is 0.86%, while Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) has a volatility of 3.67%. This indicates that PSFM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COWG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PSFM	COWG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	3.67%	-2.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.88%	12.01%	-9.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.01%	15.96%	-11.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.57%	19.11%	-8.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.51%	19.11%	-8.60%

PSFM vs. COWG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSFM has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than COWG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSFM vs. COWG - Dividend Comparison

PSFM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.30%	0.32%	0.40%	0.47%
PSFM Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSFM and COWG in my portfolio?

PSFM and COWG have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PSFM or COWG?

COWG has higher volatility (3.67%) compared to PSFM (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSFM dropped -14.33% vs COWG's -23.60%.

Which ETF is better, PSFM or COWG?

On 3-year performance, COWG leads with 24.53% vs 13.46% for PSFM. On fees, COWG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, PSFM has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PSFM or COWG?

Over the 3-year period, COWG has performed better with a 24.53% return vs 13.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSFM or COWG?

COWG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PSFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PSFM or COWG?

COWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.30%, compared with 0.00% for PSFM.

What is the main difference between PSFM and COWG?

PSFM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while COWG is Mid Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PSFM and 0.49% for COWG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.37 vs 0.84), 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.