GCOW vs VTI
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GCOW | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $3.5B | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.58% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 109 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +15.04% | +12.79% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.28% | +20.47% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.85% | +21.53% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.09% | +11.84% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -37.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 22, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
GCOW vs VTI Performance
Pacer Global Cash Cows Dividend ETF (GCOW) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GCOW returned +20.28% while VTI returned +20.47%. Year to date, GCOW is up 15.04% versus a gain of 12.79% for VTI.
Over three years, GCOW compounded at +16.85% per year against +21.53% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.09% and +11.84% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, GCOW has the edge at +10.48% annualized vs +8.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% 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 -56.6% for VTI. 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GCOW charges 0.60% per year while VTI 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 4.58% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
GCOW and VTI share 12 holdings out of 2873 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GCOW or VTI?
GCOW has an expense ratio of 0.60% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $57 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GCOW or VTI?
Over the past year GCOW returned +20.28% vs +20.47% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), GCOW annualized +10.48% vs +8.07% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GCOW or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.2% for GCOW. Worst drawdown: GCOW -37.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both GCOW and VTI?
GCOW and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GCOW and VTI?
GCOW and VTI share 12 common holdings with a 2.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2873 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GCOW or VTI?
GCOW yields 4.58% while VTI yields 1.07%, 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.