QAT vs. ECOW

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) and ECOW (Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - QAT tracks the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index while ECOW tracks the Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QAT returned 2.76%/yr vs 7.05%/yr for ECOW. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QAT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for ECOW.

Performance

QAT vs. ECOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QAT achieves a -3.28% return, which is significantly lower than ECOW's 12.74% return.

QAT

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: -4.88%
• 6M: -6.30%
• YTD: -3.28%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: 3.89%
• 5Y*: 2.76%
• 10Y*: 3.20%

ECOW

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 1.60%
• 6M: 8.22%
• YTD: 12.74%
• 1Y: 30.43%
• 3Y*: 17.04%
• 5Y*: 7.05%
• 10Y*: —

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

QAT vs. ECOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	-3.28%	8.81%	5.20%	2.72%	-7.23%	14.42%	6.94%	-3.57%
ECOW Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF	12.74%	32.50%	3.17%	15.79%	-19.28%	7.47%	-2.51%	10.37%

Correlation

The correlation between QAT and ECOW is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2019	0.30

QAT vs. ECOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QAT	ECOW
Financial Services	55.5%	-
Basic Materials	12.6%	11.1%
Industrials	8.4%	9.3%
Energy	7.6%	8.6%
Communication Services	6.3%	12.8%
Real Estate	4.0%	-
Utilities	2.5%	7.2%
Technology	1.0%	6.8%
Healthcare	0.8%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	0.7%	14.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	13.1%

Return for Risk

QAT vs. ECOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QAT

QAT Risk / Return Rank: 8
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 7
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 8

ECOW

ECOW Risk / Return Rank: 78
ECOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
ECOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
ECOW Omega Ratio Rank: 79
ECOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ECOW Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

QAT vs. ECOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW). 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.

	QAT	ECOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.14	2.06	-2.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.11	2.79	-2.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.37	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.18	3.66	-3.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.31	9.98	-10.29

QAT vs. ECOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QAT Sharpe Ratio is -0.14, which is lower than the ECOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QAT and ECOW, 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

QAT vs. ECOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, which is greater than ECOW's maximum drawdown of -40.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and ECOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QAT	ECOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.21%	-40.27%	-4.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.60%	-8.35%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.41%	-18.77%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.17%	-33.30%	+0.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.31%	-3.83%	-11.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.11%	-10.98%	-8.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.15%	3.06%	+3.09%

Volatility

QAT vs. ECOW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 3.17%, while Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW) has a volatility of 4.23%. This indicates that QAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ECOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QAT	ECOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.17%	4.23%	-1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.12%	12.07%	-0.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.41%	14.85%	-1.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.09%	17.78%	-2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.51%	20.08%	-2.57%

QAT vs. ECOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than ECOW's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

QAT vs. ECOW - Dividend Comparison

QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.84%, more than ECOW's 4.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECOW Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF	4.45%	5.20%	7.35%	5.46%	7.50%	4.39%	3.35%	8.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	4.84%	3.51%	5.90%	3.92%	4.78%	2.33%	2.63%	3.57%	4.63%	4.10%	3.51%	4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QAT and ECOW in my portfolio?

QAT and ECOW have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QAT or ECOW?

ECOW has higher volatility (4.23%) compared to QAT (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs ECOW's -40.27%.

Which ETF is better, QAT or ECOW?

On 5-year performance, ECOW leads with 7.05% vs 2.76% for QAT. On fees, QAT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QAT or ECOW?

Over the 5-year period, ECOW has performed better with a 7.05% return vs 2.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QAT or ECOW?

QAT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for ECOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QAT or ECOW?

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.84%, compared with 4.45% for ECOW.

What is the main difference between QAT and ECOW?

QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while ECOW tracks Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.70% for ECOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs -0.14), 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.