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 VB: how they differ

COWZ and VB hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and VB hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and VB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZVB
Jabil Inc0.55%0.49%
Twilio Inc0.36%0.38%
Tapestry Inc0.55%0.36%
Williams-Sonoma Inc0.35%0.33%
Illumina Inc0.31%0.31%
F5 Inc0.32%0.29%
United Therapeutics Corp0.41%0.28%
Expand Energy Corp0.52%0.27%
JB Hunt Transport Services Inc0.37%0.27%
Omnicom Group Inc0.84%0.25%
Incyte Corp0.44%0.23%
Viatris Inc0.65%0.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in VB
QUALCOMM Inc 2.67%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%
Altria Group Inc 2.21%REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 0.46%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%Astera Labs Inc 0.45%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%Natera Inc 0.45%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%EMCOR Group Inc 0.45%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%NRG Energy Inc 0.38%
Uber Technologies Inc 2.01%MKS Instruments Inc 0.37%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%Flex Ltd 0.36%

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 VB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerVanguard
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Small-Cap
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+15.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−2.3 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%21.7%
Holdings1001311

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.

VB in plain words

VB is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1311 positions, with the top ten at 4.3%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or VB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and VB returned +15.2%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or VB?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and VB charges 0.03%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and VB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 22% of VB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% 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 VB, 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 VB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-VB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources