COWG vs FFOG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF vs Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF
Which is better, COWG or FFOG?
COWG has been ahead.
FFOG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | COWG | FFOG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.41%Best |
| AUM | $2.2B | $341M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.75% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 205 | 1,667 |
| YTD Return | +9.94%Best | +0.34% |
| 1Y Return | +9.18%Best | -2.04% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.70%Best | +20.87% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 20.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.6%Best | -25.4% |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $18,351Best | $18,087 |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 21, 2022 | Nov 6, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 6, 2023 to Nov 11, 2026 (3 years).
COWG vs FFOG growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3 years both funds cover.
COWG vs FFOG Performance
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (COWG) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FFOG) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year COWG returned +9.18% while FFOG returned -2.04%. Year to date, COWG is up 9.94% versus a gain of 0.34% for FFOG.
Over three years, COWG compounded at +21.70% per year against +20.87% for FFOG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFOG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.8% compared with 15.4% for COWG. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -23.6% for COWG and -25.4% for FFOG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COWG charges 0.49% per year while FFOG charges 0.41%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $41 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COWG currently yields 0.75% against 0.00% for FFOG.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of COWG and FFOG you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, COWG or FFOG?
COWG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while FFOG charges 0.41%. FFOG is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COWG or FFOG?
Over the past year COWG returned +9.18% vs -2.04% for FFOG, so COWG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COWG or FFOG?
FFOG has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.4% for COWG. Worst drawdown: COWG -23.6% vs FFOG -25.4%.
Should I hold both COWG and FFOG?
COWG and FFOG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, COWG or FFOG?
COWG yields 0.75% while FFOG yields 0.00%, so COWG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FFOG better than COWG?
FFOG has a lower expense ratio. COWG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.