COWG
Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF
UMD
Adj. R2
0.759
Rel. Sharpe
1.243
Mkt beta
0.93
AUM
US$2.1B
MER
0.49%
Valuation
97
ETF comparison
Verified factor-similar pair
COWG vs PWB
These two ETFs meet the same FF6 US comparison criteria: US-listed equity ETFs, the same USD model basis, at least one material non-market factor, and 100% overlap in statistically significant material factor exposure.
UMD
Similarity score
82
Verified similar
The score combines exposure-level distance, factor-vector shape, market-beta closeness, and a small backtested relative-Sharpe term.
Quick Read
- COWG has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (1.243 vs 1.065).
- COWG has the lower published fee (0.49% vs 0.55%).
- COWG is cheaper on dividend valuation (97 vs 701, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
- PWB has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.932 vs 0.759).
These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.
PWB
Invesco Large Cap Growth ETF
UMD
Adj. R2
0.932
Rel. Sharpe
1.065
Mkt beta
1.08
AUM
US$1.7B
MER
0.55%
Valuation
701
Factor Exposure Match
Blue bars compare raw factor beta magnitude. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength. Dim bars indicate the t-stat is below 1.96.
SMB
diff +0.17
HML
diff +0.09
RMW
diff -0.07
CMA
diff +0.12
UMD
diff +0.02
Why This Pair Matches
Exposure level
84
Exposure shape
85
Mkt beta diff
0.15
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.178
This comparison focuses on measured factor exposure. It does not compare holdings methodology, turnover, tax handling, or issuer process. Backtested relative Sharpe is a secondary signal rather than a stand-alone forecast. See methodology.
Monthly updates
Get the next US ETF leaders update
Get one monthly email when the US leaders table refreshes, plus methodology and comparison-page updates.
Monthly leaders refresh
Download-access updates
Low-volume research notes
One monthly email when the data drop lands. This browser will remember you after signup.