GCOW vs QQQ
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. GCOW offers more diversification with 109 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GCOW | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $3.5B | $496.3B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.58% | 0.44% | |
| Holdings | 109 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +15.06% | +16.19% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.30% | +25.22% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.61% | +25.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.11% | +14.34% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -37.6% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2016 | Mar 10, 1999 |
GCOW vs QQQ Performance
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year GCOW returned +20.30% while QQQ returned +25.22%. Year to date, GCOW is up 15.06% versus a gain of 16.19% for QQQ.
Over three years, GCOW compounded at +16.61% per year against +25.47% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +13.11% and +14.34% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.01% annualized vs +10.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 15.2% for GCOW. 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 -83.0% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.49. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GCOW charges 0.60% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $18 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GCOW currently yields 4.58% against 0.44% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GCOW or QQQ?
GCOW has an expense ratio of 0.60% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $42 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GCOW or QQQ?
Over the past year GCOW returned +20.30% vs +25.22% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), GCOW annualized +10.47% vs +13.01% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GCOW or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 15.2% for GCOW. Worst drawdown: GCOW -37.6% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both GCOW and QQQ?
GCOW and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.49, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GCOW and QQQ?
GCOW and QQQ share 2 common holdings with a 1.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 198 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GCOW or QQQ?
GCOW yields 4.58% while QQQ yields 0.44%, so GCOW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.