QSIX vs. GCOW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QSIX (Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF) and GCOW (Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QSIX is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Nasdaq-100 Index, while GCOW is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QSIX returned 38.17% vs 27.12% for GCOW. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.60% expense ratio.

Performance

QSIX vs. GCOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF (QSIX) 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, QSIX achieves a 19.69% return, which is significantly higher than GCOW's 12.18% return.

QSIX

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 10.29%
• YTD: 19.69%
• 6M: 18.14%
• 1Y: 38.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GCOW

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 0.09%
• YTD: 12.18%
• 6M: 13.23%
• 1Y: 27.12%
• 3Y*: 17.41%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 9.91%

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

QSIX vs. GCOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QSIX Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF	19.69%	18.54%	4.66%
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	12.18%	27.34%	-6.46%

Correlation

The correlation between QSIX and GCOW is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	0.19

Return for Risk

QSIX vs. GCOW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QSIX

QSIX Risk / Return Rank: 75
QSIX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QSIX Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QSIX Omega Ratio Rank: 76
QSIX Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QSIX Martin Ratio Rank: 73

GCOW

GCOW Risk / Return Rank: 79
GCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
GCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
GCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 72
GCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
GCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

QSIX vs. GCOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF (QSIX) 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.

	QSIX	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.61	2.52	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	3.63	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.44	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	5.71	-2.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.62	15.05	-1.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QSIX vs. GCOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QSIX Sharpe Ratio is 2.61, which is comparable to the GCOW Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QSIX 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QSIX	GCOW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.61	2.52	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.39	0.59	+0.80

Drawdowns

QSIX vs. GCOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QSIX drawdown since its inception was -20.72%, smaller than the maximum GCOW drawdown of -37.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QSIX and GCOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QSIX	GCOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.72%	-37.64%	+16.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.05%	-4.77%	-6.28%
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	-0.28%	-2.73%	+2.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.06%	-5.84%	+2.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.81%	1.81%	+1.00%

Volatility

QSIX vs. GCOW - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF (QSIX) has a higher volatility of 4.09% compared to Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) at 2.85%. This indicates that QSIX'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

	QSIX	GCOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.09%	2.85%	+1.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.24%	7.99%	+3.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.72%	10.81%	+3.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.18%	13.49%	+5.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.18%	16.20%	+2.98%

QSIX vs. GCOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QSIX and GCOW have an expense ratio of 0.60%.

Dividends

QSIX vs. GCOW - Dividend Comparison

QSIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.82%, less than GCOW's 4.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GCOW Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF	4.43%	4.06%	5.14%	5.28%	4.39%	4.23%	4.12%	4.40%	3.94%	2.79%	1.95%
QSIX Pacer Metarus Nasdaq 100 Dividend Multiplier 600 ETF	3.82%	4.02%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QSIX and GCOW in my portfolio?

QSIX and GCOW have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QSIX or GCOW?

QSIX has higher volatility (4.09%) compared to GCOW (2.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QSIX dropped -20.72% vs GCOW's -37.64%.

Which ETF is better, QSIX or GCOW?

On 1-year performance, QSIX leads with 38.17% vs 27.12% for GCOW. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, GCOW has been the lower-risk option at 2.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QSIX or GCOW?

Over the 1-year period, QSIX has performed better with a 38.17% return vs 27.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QSIX or GCOW?

QSIX and GCOW have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.

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

GCOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.43%, compared with 3.82% for QSIX.

What is the main difference between QSIX and GCOW?

QSIX is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GCOW is Large Cap Value Equities. QSIX tracks Nasdaq-100 Index, while GCOW tracks Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividends Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QSIX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 2.52), 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.