XMHQ vs. COWZ
XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and COWZ (Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index, while COWZ is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Cash Cows 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMHQ returned 9.12%/yr vs 10.11%/yr for COWZ. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for COWZ.
Performance
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 7.58% return, which is significantly higher than COWZ's 6.41% return.
XMHQ
- 1D
- -0.34%
- 1M
- 0.12%
- YTD
- 7.58%
- 6M
- 8.05%
- 1Y
- 12.57%
- 3Y*
- 15.37%
- 5Y*
- 9.12%
- 10Y*
- 12.56%
COWZ
- 1D
- -0.30%
- 1M
- 0.81%
- YTD
- 6.41%
- 6M
- 7.19%
- 1Y
- 19.32%
- 3Y*
- 13.26%
- 5Y*
- 10.11%
- 10Y*
- —
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 7.58% | 4.71% | 16.79% | 29.51% | -12.42% | 20.98% | 26.61% | 27.18% | -9.08% | 15.64% |
COWZ Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF | 6.41% | 8.98% | 10.64% | 14.73% | 0.19% | 42.57% | 11.65% | 23.41% | -10.05% | 20.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMHQ and COWZ is 0.71, 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 | 0.71 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2016 | 0.81 |
The correlation between XMHQ and COWZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.85 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMHQ
COWZ
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
-
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
-
Industrials
XMHQ
COWZ
Healthcare
XMHQ
COWZ
Financial Services
XMHQ
COWZ
-
Technology
XMHQ
COWZ
Consumer Cyclical
XMHQ
COWZ
Energy
XMHQ
COWZ
Basic Materials
XMHQ
COWZ
Consumer Defensive
XMHQ
COWZ
Communication Services
XMHQ
COWZ
Utilities
XMHQ
COWZ
-
Real Estate
XMHQ
-
COWZ
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XMHQ vs. COWZ — Risk / Return Rank
XMHQ
COWZ
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ). 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.
| XMHQ | COWZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.93 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.31 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.43 | 3.88 | -2.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.17 | 10.52 | -6.35 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XMHQ | COWZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.81 | 1.74 | -0.93 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 | 0.58 | -0.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 0.64 | -0.19 |
Drawdowns
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, which is greater than COWZ's maximum drawdown of -38.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and COWZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMHQ | COWZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.19% | -38.63% | -19.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.85% | -5.00% | -3.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -22.00% | -2.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.47% | -22.00% | -3.47% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.44% | -2.53% | +0.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.28% | -4.80% | -4.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 1.84% | +1.18% |
Volatility
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) has a higher volatility of 4.06% compared to Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) at 2.92%. This indicates that XMHQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMHQ | COWZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.06% | 2.92% | +1.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.28% | 7.21% | +4.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.61% | 11.16% | +4.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.76% | 17.64% | +3.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.72% | 19.92% | +0.80% |
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than COWZ's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
XMHQ vs. COWZ - Dividend Comparison
XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than COWZ's 1.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COWZ Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF | 1.94% | 2.19% | 1.82% | 1.92% | 1.96% | 1.48% | 2.54% | 1.96% | 1.67% | 1.95% | 0.13% | 0.00% |
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 0.56% | 0.64% | 5.20% | 0.73% | 1.72% | 1.00% | 1.12% | 1.22% | 1.59% | 1.06% | 1.63% | 1.34% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XMHQ and COWZ have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XMHQ has higher volatility (4.06%) compared to COWZ (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs COWZ's -38.63%.
On 5-year performance, COWZ leads with 10.11% vs 9.12% for XMHQ. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, COWZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, COWZ has performed better with a 10.11% return vs 9.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for COWZ.
COWZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.56% for XMHQ.
XMHQ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while COWZ is Mid Cap Value Equities. XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index, while COWZ tracks Pacer US Cash Cows 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.49% for COWZ.
COWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.74 vs 0.81), 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.
Find the right allocation for XMHQ and COWZ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer