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 ONEQ: how they differ

COWZ and ONEQ hold 5% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and ONEQ hold 5% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZONEQ
QUALCOMM Inc2.67%0.58%
T-Mobile US Inc1.78%0.45%
Gilead Sciences Inc1.84%0.36%
Booking Holdings Inc1.87%0.29%
Adobe Inc1.75%0.23%
Intuit Inc1.63%0.20%
Comcast Corp1.71%0.19%
Automatic Data Processing Inc1.31%0.19%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc1.17%0.14%
PACCAR Inc0.99%0.13%
Airbnb Inc1.62%0.12%
Diamondback Energy Inc1.99%0.12%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in ONEQ
Altria Group Inc 2.21%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%APPLE INC 10.04%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
Uber Technologies Inc 2.01%BROADCOM INC 4.64%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
Newmont Corp 1.93%TESLA INC 3.58%

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 May 31, 2026.

COWZ and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerFidelity
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Nasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%87.4%
Holdings1001022

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.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or ONEQ?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 5% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources