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 FBCG: how they differ

COWZ and FBCG hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and FBCG hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and FBCG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZFBCG
Gilead Sciences Inc1.84%0.69%
Target Corp1.07%0.42%
Twilio Inc0.36%0.38%
Delta Air Lines Inc1.48%0.33%
United Airlines Holdings Inc0.83%0.30%
Uber Technologies Inc2.01%0.21%
Cardinal Health Inc1.62%0.20%
McKesson Corp1.79%0.19%
Jabil Inc0.55%0.16%
Salesforce Inc1.76%0.13%
Cencora Inc1.03%0.12%
PACCAR Inc0.99%0.10%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in FBCG
QUALCOMM Inc 2.67%NVIDIA CORP 14.62%
Altria Group Inc 2.21%APPLE INC 9.64%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%ALPHABET INC 9.10%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%BROADCOM INC 3.74%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%

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.

COWZ and FBCG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerFidelity
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Blue Chip Growth
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+17.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−0.2 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.57%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%86.8%
Holdings100214

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.

FBCG in plain words

FBCG is an index equity fund tracking the Blue Chip Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 214 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or FBCG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and FBCG returned +17.3%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or FBCG?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and FBCG charges 0.57%, so COWZ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and FBCG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 87% of FBCG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 FBCG, 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 FBCG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-FBCG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources