COWZ vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
COWZ and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. COWZ is Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 102 for COWZ. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has COWZ ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 55.
What is the main difference between COWZ and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to COWZ's 102, and 7% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 102 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 21.4% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.96% | 1.09% |
| Average volume | 1,029,021 | 3,162,812 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +20% | +8.7% |
| YTD return | +15.4% | +8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.2% | +9.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 13.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 0.38 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.12 | 0.64 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 55/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 44/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
COWZ leads
COWZ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support COWZ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COWZ over VTI, 58 versus 55 as of Nov 7, 2026. COWZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while VTI holds the stronger quality profile. COWZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor COWZ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. COWZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
COWZ vs VTI: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | COWZ | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 102 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 21.4% | 33.2% | COWZ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.96% | 1.09% | COWZ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22% | -25.4% | COWZ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.6% | 13.8% | COWZ |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare COWZ and VTI against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value59 vs 44COWZ +15
- Quality60 vs 74VTI +14
- Momentum44 vs 32COWZ +12
- Risk Resilience74 vs 77Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor COWZ. COWZ’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; VTI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
COWZ's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COWZ and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COWZ (Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | COWZ | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 102 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,029,021 | 3,162,812 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 13.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.38 | 1.01 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
COWZ and VTI share 7.06% of their weighted exposure across 99 common holdings.
1 holding is unique to COWZ, and 3,400 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.24% of the fund, against 21.41% for COWZ (3,524 holdings vs 102). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | COWZ | VTI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| VZVerizon Communications Inc | 2.02% | 0.24% | 0.24% |
| GILDGilead Sciences Inc | 2.06% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
| TAT&T Inc | 2.06% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
| QCOMQUALCOMM Inc | 1.51% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
| BKNGBooking Holdings Inc | 1.93% | 0.21% | 0.21% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc | 2.41% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| UBERUber Technologies Inc | 1.89% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 1.95% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What COWZ adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.46% | 0.13% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc | 2.41% | 0.2% |
| NEMNewmont Corp | 2.33% | 0.14% |
| HCAHCA Healthcare Inc | 2.08% | 0.09% |
| TAT&T Inc | 2.06% | 0.22% |
| GILDGilead Sciences Inc | 2.06% | 0.22% |
What VTI adds that COWZ doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | COWZ |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
COWZ vs VTI: five-year payout growth
COWZ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.13% a year against VTI's 6.28%. VTI never reduced its annual distribution in the window; COWZ did in 1 year. COWZ: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.1x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.13% | 6.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.852 | $2.770 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.319 | $3.757 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #62 of 138 | #81 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor COWZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | COWZ | Value 59 vs 44 |
| Technicals | COWZ | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COWZ and VTI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on COWZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6COWZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COWZ +3
- 58 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- COWZ +10
- 66 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- COWZ +8
- 67 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- COWZ +3
- 63 vs 60
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when COWZ moved ahead of VTI.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only COWZ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
COWZ leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.54%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.39%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1VTI closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to COWZ's edge.
- 2VTI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3COWZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate COWZ's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
COWZ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.7% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | -5.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.8% | -5.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.7% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 15.4% | 8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20% | 8.7% |
Technicals
COWZ has the stronger structure| Metric | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.2 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 19.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COWZ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.38 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.12 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -7.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.1% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 13.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between COWZ and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to COWZ's 102, and 7% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do COWZ and VTI overlap?
COWZ and VTI share 7.06% of their weighted exposure across 99 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to COWZ, and 3,400 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, COWZ or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 102 for COWZ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.49% for COWZ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
COWZ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.96% against 1.09% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.8% annualized against 12.6% for COWZ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
COWZ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22% against -25.4% for VTI.
Compare COWZ and VTI with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.