QMID vs. COWG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QMID (WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund) and COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - QMID tracks the WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Index while COWG tracks the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QMID returned 11.39% vs 13.36% for COWG. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QMID charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for COWG.

Performance

QMID vs. COWG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund (QMID) 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, QMID achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than COWG's 12.50% return.

QMID

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 2.55%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 1.42%
• 1Y: 11.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

QMID vs. COWG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QMID WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund	2.87%	5.02%	9.33%
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	12.50%	10.24%	30.98%

Correlation

The correlation between QMID and COWG is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2024	0.79

The correlation between QMID and COWG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

QMID vs. COWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QMID	COWG
Industrials	23.6%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	18.2%	3.2%
Technology	16.3%	48.5%
Healthcare	14.5%	21.0%
Financial Services	12.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	2.0%
Energy	3.3%	8.4%
Communication Services	3.1%	5.2%
Basic Materials	2.1%	6.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

QMID vs. COWG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QMID

QMID Risk / Return Rank: 23
QMID Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
QMID Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
QMID Omega Ratio Rank: 21
QMID Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
QMID Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

QMID vs. COWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund (QMID) 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.

	QMID	COWG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	0.84	-0.07
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	1.24	-0.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.15	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.07	1.24	-0.17
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.66	3.64	+0.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QMID vs. COWG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMID Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is comparable to the COWG Sharpe Ratio of 0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMID 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

	QMID	COWG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77	0.84	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	1.18	-0.78

Drawdowns

QMID vs. COWG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMID drawdown since its inception was -24.42%, roughly equal to the maximum COWG drawdown of -23.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMID and COWG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QMID	COWG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.42%	-23.60%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.67%	-10.79%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.38%	0.00%	-1.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.49%	-3.28%	-2.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.12%	3.67%	-0.55%

Volatility

QMID vs. COWG - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund (QMID) and Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) have volatilities of 3.68% and 3.67%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QMID	COWG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.68%	3.67%	+0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.44%	12.01%	-1.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.97%	15.96%	-0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	19.11%	-0.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.51%	19.11%	-0.60%

QMID vs. COWG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMID has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than COWG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QMID vs. COWG - Dividend Comparison

QMID's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.50%, more than COWG's 0.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.30%	0.32%	0.40%	0.47%
QMID WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Fund	0.50%	0.51%	1.16%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QMID and COWG in my portfolio?

QMID and COWG have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QMID or COWG?

QMID has higher volatility (3.68%) compared to COWG (3.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMID dropped -24.42% vs COWG's -23.60%.

Which ETF is better, QMID or COWG?

On 1-year performance, COWG leads with 13.36% vs 11.39% for QMID. On fees, QMID is cheaper at 0.38% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QMID or COWG?

Over the 1-year period, COWG has performed better with a 13.36% return vs 11.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QMID or COWG?

QMID is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for COWG.

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

QMID has the higher dividend yield at 0.50%, compared with 0.30% for COWG.

What is the main difference between QMID and COWG?

QMID tracks WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Quality Growth Index, while COWG tracks Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for QMID and 0.49% for COWG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

COWG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.84 vs 0.77), 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.