QQQG vs. COWG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQG is a Nasdaq-100 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. QQQG is actively managed, while COWG is passively managed. Over the past year, QQQG returned 41.91% vs 10.41% for COWG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.49% expense ratio.

Performance

QQQG vs. COWG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) 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, QQQG achieves a 31.01% return, which is significantly higher than COWG's 7.76% return.

QQQG

• 1D: -4.29%
• 1M: 6.06%
• YTD: 31.01%
• 6M: 28.53%
• 1Y: 41.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COWG

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: -0.91%
• YTD: 7.76%
• 6M: 5.91%
• 1Y: 10.41%
• 3Y*: 22.71%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQQG vs. COWG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	31.01%	14.72%	1.68%
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	7.76%	10.24%	15.51%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQG and COWG is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2024	0.88

The correlation between QQQG and COWG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQG vs. COWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQG	COWG
Technology	74.2%	51.4%
Healthcare	10.4%	20.0%
Communication Services	5.2%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	2.9%
Energy	2.3%	7.3%
Industrials	2.2%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	1.9%
Basic Materials	-	6.3%
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

QQQG vs. COWG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 60
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 63

COWG

COWG Risk / Return Rank: 20
COWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 18
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

QQQG vs. COWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) 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.

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.

	QQQG	COWG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	0.61	+1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	0.93	+1.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.12	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	0.97	+2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.72	2.81	+7.91

QQQG vs. COWG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQG Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the COWG Sharpe Ratio of 0.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQG 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.

Drawdowns

QQQG vs. COWG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQG drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, roughly equal to the maximum COWG drawdown of -23.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQG and COWG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQG	COWG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-23.60%	-0.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.79%	-10.79%	-3.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.29%	-4.21%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.57%	-3.27%	-0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.92%	3.72%	+0.20%

Volatility

QQQG vs. COWG - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a higher volatility of 11.39% compared to Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) at 7.27%. This indicates that QQQG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COWG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQG	COWG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.39%	7.27%	+4.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.74%	13.29%	+5.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.10%	17.03%	+5.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.34%	19.27%	+5.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.34%	19.27%	+5.07%

QQQG vs. COWG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QQQG and COWG have an expense ratio of 0.49%.

Dividends

QQQG vs. COWG - Dividend Comparison

QQQG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, less than COWG's 0.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.37%	0.32%	0.40%	0.47%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.05%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQG and COWG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, QQQG and COWG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QQQG or COWG?

QQQG has higher volatility (11.39%) compared to COWG (7.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQG dropped -23.61% vs COWG's -23.60%.

Which ETF is better, QQQG or COWG?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 41.91% vs 10.41% for COWG. Both ETFs have the same 0.49% expense ratio. On volatility, COWG has been the lower-risk option at 7.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQG or COWG?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 41.91% return vs 10.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQG or COWG?

QQQG and COWG have the same expense ratio: 0.49% per year.

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

COWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.37%, compared with 0.05% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between QQQG and COWG?

QQQG is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while COWG is Mid Cap Growth Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 0.61), 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.