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 FDVV: how they differ

COWZ and FDVV hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Fidelity High Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and FDVV hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and FDVV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZFDVV
Altria Group Inc2.21%1.70%
Ford Motor Co2.01%1.26%
Kraft Heinz Co/The1.13%1.28%
HP Inc1.03%0.86%
Pfizer Inc2.00%0.30%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co2.03%0.29%
United Parcel Service Inc1.69%0.22%
Automatic Data Processing Inc1.31%0.21%
PACCAR Inc0.99%0.20%
Paychex Inc0.59%0.19%
Verizon Communications Inc1.90%0.14%
AT&T Inc1.84%0.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in FDVV
QUALCOMM Inc 2.67%NVIDIA CORP 6.86%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%APPLE INC 5.70%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%MICROSOFT CORP 4.50%
Uber Technologies Inc 2.01%BROADCOM INC 3.50%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%
Newmont Corp 1.93%ALPHABET INC 2.21%
Booking Holdings Inc 1.87%COCA COLA CO 1.85%
Gilead Sciences Inc 1.84%PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%

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 FDVV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerFidelity
What it isUS Cash Cows 100High Dividend
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+17.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−0.3 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%86.7%
Holdings10096

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.

FDVV in plain words

FDVV is an index equity fund tracking the High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% 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 96 positions, with the top ten at 32.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or FDVV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and FDVV returned +17.2%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or FDVV?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and FDVV charges 0.15%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and FDVV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 87% of FDVV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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 FDVV, 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 FDVV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-FDVV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources