XLG vs. COWG

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) and COWG (Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index, while COWG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XLG returned 21.26%/yr vs 21.24%/yr for COWG. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XLG charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for COWG.

Performance

XLG vs. COWG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) 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, XLG achieves a 4.48% return, which is significantly lower than COWG's 10.75% return.

XLG

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 0.83%
• 6M: 4.07%
• YTD: 4.48%
• 1Y: 18.08%
• 3Y*: 21.26%
• 5Y*: 14.10%
• 10Y*: 16.57%

COWG

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 7.13%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 1Y: 12.04%
• 3Y*: 21.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XLG vs. COWG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	4.48%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-1.44%
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	10.75%	10.24%	34.99%	20.69%	-0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between XLG and COWG is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2022	0.81

The correlation between XLG and COWG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

XLG vs. COWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLG	COWG
Technology	48.7%	51.4%
Communication Services	13.9%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	2.9%
Financial Services	9.9%	-
Healthcare	6.7%	20.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	1.9%
Energy	2.2%	7.3%
Industrials	2.1%	3.1%
Utilities	0.8%	1.4%
Basic Materials	0.6%	6.3%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

XLG vs. COWG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 41
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 43
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 39

COWG

COWG Risk / Return Rank: 25
COWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
COWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
COWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
COWG Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

XLG vs. COWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) 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.

	XLG	COWG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	0.68	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	1.04	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.13	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.46	1.12	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.88	3.21	+1.67

XLG vs. COWG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is higher than the COWG Sharpe Ratio of 0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLG 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

XLG vs. COWG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLG drawdown since its inception was -52.39%, which is greater than COWG's maximum drawdown of -23.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLG and COWG.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLG	COWG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.39%	-23.60%	-28.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.41%	-10.79%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.70%	-23.60%	+2.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.02%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.28%	-2.98%	-1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.63%	-3.26%	-4.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	3.76%	-0.04%

Volatility

XLG vs. COWG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) is 4.79%, while Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) has a volatility of 7.25%. This indicates that XLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COWG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLG	COWG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.79%	7.25%	-2.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.07%	14.10%	-3.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.12%	17.76%	-3.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.83%	19.37%	-0.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.88%	19.37%	-0.49%

XLG vs. COWG - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLG has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than COWG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

XLG vs. COWG - Dividend Comparison

XLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, more than COWG's 0.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COWG Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.36%	0.32%	0.40%	0.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.64%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XLG and COWG in my portfolio?

XLG and COWG have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XLG or COWG?

COWG has higher volatility (7.25%) compared to XLG (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XLG dropped -52.39% vs COWG's -23.60%.

Which ETF is better, XLG or COWG?

On 3-year performance, XLG leads with 21.26% vs 21.24% for COWG. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XLG or COWG?

Over the 3-year period, XLG has performed better with a 21.26% return vs 21.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLG or COWG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for COWG.

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

XLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.64%, compared with 0.36% for COWG.

What is the main difference between XLG and COWG?

XLG is categorized as S&P 500, while COWG is Large Cap Growth Equities. XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index, while COWG tracks Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XLG and 0.49% for COWG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 0.68), 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.