GCOW vs IVV
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GCOW or IVV?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GCOW led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GCOW is less concentrated, with 21.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%.
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 | GCOW | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $3.6B | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 4.50% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 111 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +11.41% | +12.27%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.12%Best | +17.04% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.57% | +21.24%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.83% | +13.08%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.6% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,286 | $18,490Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 21.1%Best | 37.8% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2016 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 23, 2016 to Sep 17, 2026 (10.6 years).
GCOW vs IVV 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 10.6 years both funds cover.
GCOW vs IVV Performance
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year GCOW returned +17.12% while IVV returned +17.04%. Year to date, GCOW is up 11.41% versus a gain of 12.27% for IVV.
Over three years, GCOW compounded at +14.57% per year against +21.24% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.83% and +13.08% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +14.75% annualized vs +10.07%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GCOW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -37.6% for GCOW and -33.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GCOW charges 0.60% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GCOW currently yields 4.50% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
22.3% of GCOW's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 3.0% of IVV's money is in holdings GCOW also owns.
GCOW and IVV share little of their money.
12 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in GCOW and 490 in IVV, against full books of 111 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 470 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for GCOW (95.6% of the fund), and 4 for GCOW that do not appear in IVV (5.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in GCOW | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVXChevron Corp | 2.08% | 0.58% | 1.50% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 1.99% | 0.44% | 1.55% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 2.21% | 0.21% | 2.00% |
| TBBAt&t Inc | 2.15% | 0.27% | 1.88% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 2.08% | 0.32% | 1.76% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 2.07% | 0.24% | 1.83% |
| MDTMedtronic Plc Ordinary Shares | 2.10% | 0.18% | 1.92% |
| CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa | 2.11% | 0.14% | 1.97% |
| PEPPepsico Inc. | 1.87% | 0.29% | 1.58% |
| CMECme Group, Cl A | 1.86% | 0.16% | 1.70% |
22.3% of GCOW is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GCOW or IVV?
GCOW has an expense ratio of 0.60% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GCOW or IVV?
Over the past year GCOW returned +17.12% vs +17.04% for IVV, so GCOW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), GCOW annualized +10.07% vs +14.75% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GCOW or IVV?
GCOW has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: GCOW -37.6% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both GCOW and IVV?
GCOW and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between GCOW and IVV?
22.3% of GCOW's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 3.0% of IVV's is in holdings GCOW also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in GCOW and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, GCOW or IVV?
GCOW yields 4.50% while IVV yields 1.06%, so GCOW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than GCOW?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. GCOW led over 1Y, IVV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. GCOW is less concentrated, with 21.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.