QQQG vs. GCOW

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQG is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Pacer, while GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index. QQQG is actively managed, while GCOW is passively managed. Over the past year, QQQG returned 34.56% vs 26.76% for GCOW. Their 0.17 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QQQG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

QQQG vs. GCOW - 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 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, QQQG achieves a 28.97% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 14.53% return.

QQQG

• 1D: 3.68%
• 1M: 0.46%
• 6M: 32.20%
• YTD: 28.97%
• 1Y: 34.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.24%

GCOW

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 5.25%
• 6M: 5.40%
• YTD: 14.53%
• 1Y: 26.76%
• 3Y*: 16.49%
• 5Y*: 13.23%
• 10Y*: 9.81%
• ALL TIME*: 10.53%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	$12.92M	$12.70M	$12.24M
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	$354.95K	$397.77K	$489.74K

QQQG vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	28.97%	14.72%	1.68%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	14.53%	27.34%	-3.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQG and GCOW is 0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2024	0.17

QQQG vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQG	GCOW
Technology	76.3%	2.9%
Healthcare	9.7%	17.1%
Communication Services	4.4%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	22.3%
Energy	2.0%	11.7%
Industrials	2.0%	10.7%
Basic Materials	-	3.6%
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	6.8%

Return for Risk

QQQG vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 53
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 48
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 57

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 86
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 89
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 75

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QQQG vs. GCOW - 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 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.

	QQQG	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	2.47	-1.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	3.57	-1.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.44	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	3.43	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.47	10.60	-3.13

QQQG vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQG Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQG 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

QQQG vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQG drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQG and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQG	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-37.64%	+14.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.79%	-7.83%	-5.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.48%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.78%	-0.94%	-4.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-5.81%	+2.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.64%	2.53%	+2.11%

Volatility

QQQG vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a higher volatility of 9.43% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.95%. This indicates that QQQG'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

	QQQG	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.43%	2.95%	+6.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.40%	8.54%	+12.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.67%	10.88%	+13.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.10%	13.54%	+11.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.10%	16.01%	+9.09%

QQQG vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQG vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

QQQG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, less than GCOW's 4.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.59%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.05%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQG and GCOW in my portfolio?

QQQG and GCOW have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQG or GCOW?

QQQG has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to GCOW (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQG dropped -23.61% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, QQQG or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 34.56% vs 26.76% for GCOW. On fees, QQQG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQG or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 34.56% return vs 26.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQG or GCOW?

QQQG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCOW.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 0.05% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between QQQG and GCOW?

QQQG is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GCOW is Large Cap Value Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for QQQG and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.41), 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.