Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

COWZ vs DGRW: how they differ

COWZ and DGRW hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and DGRW hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and DGRW both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZDGRW
T-Mobile US Inc1.78%1.48%
Gilead Sciences Inc1.84%1.25%
Verizon Communications Inc1.90%1.15%
AT&T Inc1.84%0.79%
QUALCOMM Inc2.67%0.76%
Automatic Data Processing Inc1.31%0.71%
Newmont Corp1.93%0.71%
Halliburton Co0.69%0.84%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc1.17%0.55%
PACCAR Inc0.99%0.49%
Delta Air Lines Inc1.48%0.46%
Ford Motor Co2.01%0.44%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in DGRW
Altria Group Inc 2.21%NVIDIA CORP 7.95%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%MICROSOFT CORP 5.75%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%APPLE INC 3.87%
Uber Technologies Inc 2.01%META PLATFORMS INC 2.97%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.92%
SLB Ltd 1.84%COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) 2.88%
Adobe Inc 1.75%HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 2.81%
Comcast Corp 1.71%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.34%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

COWZ and DGRW on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
DGRW
WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerWisdomTree
What it isUS Cash Cows 100U.S. Quality Dividend Growth
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+12.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−5.1 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.28%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%96.7%
Holdings100197

COWZ in plain words

COWZ is an index equity fund tracking the US Cash Cows 100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.49% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 100 positions, with the top ten at 21.2%. It sat 3.2% below its high of Sep 3, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

DGRW in plain words

DGRW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Quality Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.28% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 197 positions, with the top ten at 36.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or DGRW?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and DGRW returned +12.4%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or DGRW?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and DGRW charges 0.28%, so DGRW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and DGRW overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 97% of DGRW by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

COWZ against DGRW, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, COWZ against DGRW, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-DGRW Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources