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 IWF: how they differ

COWZ and IWF hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and IWF hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZIWF
Booking Holdings Inc1.87%0.41%
McKesson Corp1.79%0.26%
Airbnb Inc1.62%0.18%
Adobe Inc1.75%0.17%
Cencora Inc1.03%0.16%
Autodesk Inc0.72%0.12%
Jabil Inc0.55%0.12%
Marathon Petroleum Corp1.78%0.11%
Automatic Data Processing Inc1.31%0.10%
Colgate-Palmolive Co1.10%0.09%
Tapestry Inc0.55%0.09%
Expedia Group Inc1.03%0.09%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in IWF
QUALCOMM Inc 2.67%NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85%
Altria Group Inc 2.21%APPLE INC. 6.72%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%ALPHABET INC. 6.18%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%BROADCOM INC. 5.21%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%ALPHABET INC. 4.98%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%TESLA, INC. 3.65%

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 IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPaceriShares
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Russell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%93.6%
Holdings100368

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.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or IWF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and IWF returned +7.0%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or IWF?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 IWF, 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 IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources