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 USMV: how they differ

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

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions COWZ and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZUSMV
Verizon Communications Inc1.90%1.49%
McKesson Corp1.79%1.31%
Newmont Corp1.93%1.18%
T-Mobile US Inc1.78%1.17%
Cencora Inc1.03%1.28%
AT&T Inc1.84%0.99%
Colgate-Palmolive Co1.10%0.89%
Salesforce Inc1.76%0.88%
Gilead Sciences Inc1.84%0.82%
Roper Technologies Inc0.78%0.94%
Intuit Inc1.63%0.70%
Autodesk Inc0.72%0.67%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in USMV
Altria Group Inc 2.21%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.81%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%NVIDIA CORPORATION 1.64%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%MICROSOFT CORPORATION 1.56%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.51%
Booking Holdings Inc 1.87%Chubb Limited 1.50%

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 USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPaceriShares
What it isUS Cash Cows 100MSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%94.8%
Holdings100170

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.

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and USMV returned +6.6%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or USMV?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 95% of USMV 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 USMV, 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 USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources