QQQH vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QQQH (NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQQH is a Nasdaq-100 fund managed by Neos, while GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index. Over the past 5 years, QQQH returned 8.74%/yr vs 12.37%/yr for GCOW. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QQQH charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GCOW.

Performance

QQQH vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) 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, QQQH achieves a 6.04% return, which is significantly lower than GCOW's 12.75% return.

QQQH

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 6.04%
• 6M: 6.64%
• 1Y: 18.01%
• 3Y*: 19.00%
• 5Y*: 8.74%
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -0.75%
• YTD: 12.75%
• 6M: 13.53%
• 1Y: 24.86%
• 3Y*: 16.79%
• 5Y*: 12.37%
• 10Y*: 10.32%

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

QQQH vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	6.04%	14.17%	25.98%	30.96%	-28.35%	9.76%	18.62%	0.47%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	12.75%	27.34%	3.52%	13.95%	5.49%	14.58%	-4.33%	0.31%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQH and GCOW is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2019	0.38

The correlation between QQQH and GCOW shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (1 year) to 0.38 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QQQH vs. GCOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQH	GCOW
Technology	53.5%	0.9%
Communication Services	16.1%	14.6%
Consumer Cyclical	12.1%	4.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	17.1%
Healthcare	4.1%	14.6%
Industrials	3.1%	12.4%
Utilities	1.3%	4.1%
Basic Materials	1.2%	7.3%
Energy	0.6%	24.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QQQH vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQH

QQQH Risk / Return Rank: 58
QQQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
QQQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
QQQH Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
QQQH Martin Ratio Rank: 65

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 82
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

QQQH vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) 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.

	QQQH	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.26	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	3.27	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.39	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	5.13	-2.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.33	13.09	-2.76

QQQH vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQH 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

QQQH vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQH drawdown since its inception was -31.24%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQH and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQH	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.24%	-37.64%	+6.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.96%	-4.77%	-2.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.18%	-12.35%	-2.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.24%	-21.48%	-9.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.75%	-2.24%	+0.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.24%	-5.83%	-2.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	1.88%	-0.23%

Volatility

QQQH vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF (QQQH) has a higher volatility of 4.05% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.45%. This indicates that QQQH'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

	QQQH	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.05%	2.45%	+1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.20%	7.96%	+0.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.32%	10.85%	-0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.28%	13.49%	-0.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.42%	16.17%	-2.75%

QQQH vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQH has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than GCOW's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQH vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

QQQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.89%, more than GCOW's 4.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.67%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%
QQQH NEOS Nasdaq-100 Hedged Equity Income ETF	8.89%	8.86%	7.53%	7.18%	9.05%	7.77%	7.48%	0.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQH and GCOW in my portfolio?

QQQH and GCOW have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQQH or GCOW?

QQQH has higher volatility (4.05%) compared to GCOW (2.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQH dropped -31.24% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, QQQH or GCOW?

On 5-year performance, GCOW leads with 12.37% vs 8.74% for QQQH. On fees, GCOW is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQH or GCOW?

Over the 5-year period, GCOW has performed better with a 12.37% return vs 8.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQH or GCOW?

GCOW is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQH.

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

QQQH has the higher dividend yield at 8.89%, compared with 4.67% for GCOW.

What is the main difference between QQQH and GCOW?

QQQH is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GCOW is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQH and 0.60% for GCOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GCOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.66), 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.