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 RSP: how they differ

COWZ and RSP hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and RSP hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and RSP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZRSP
ON Semiconductor Corp0.84%0.33%
QUALCOMM Inc2.67%0.26%
Jabil Inc0.55%0.26%
JB Hunt Transport Services Inc0.37%0.23%
SLB Ltd1.84%0.23%
Halliburton Co0.69%0.23%
Diamondback Energy Inc1.99%0.23%
CDW Corp/DE0.40%0.22%
Delta Air Lines Inc1.48%0.22%
Coterra Energy Inc0.63%0.22%
VeriSign Inc0.39%0.22%
Devon Energy Corp1.09%0.22%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in RSP
Accenture PLC 1.68%Intel Corp. 0.38%
Zoom Communications Inc 0.80%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34%
Tenet Healthcare Corp 0.63%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33%
Flex Ltd 0.59%Sandisk Corp. 0.32%
TechnipFMC PLC 0.58%Western Digital Corp. 0.31%
SS&C Technologies Holdings Inc 0.44%Ciena Corp. 0.30%
United Therapeutics Corp 0.41%Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29%
Twilio Inc 0.36%Centene Corp. 0.29%

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 RSP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerInvesco
What it isUS Cash Cows 100S&P 500 equal weight
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+14.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−2.7 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%99.1%
Holdings100503

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.

RSP in plain words

RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or RSP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and RSP returned +14.8%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or RSP?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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 RSP, 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 RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources