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 VONG: how they differ

COWZ and VONG hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and VONG hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and VONG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZVONG
Uber Technologies Inc2.01%0.43%
Booking Holdings Inc1.87%0.39%
Adobe Inc1.75%0.32%
Intuit Inc1.63%0.27%
McKesson Corp1.79%0.26%
Automatic Data Processing Inc1.31%0.25%
QUALCOMM Inc2.67%0.18%
Airbnb Inc1.62%0.17%
Autodesk Inc0.72%0.15%
Cencora Inc1.03%0.15%
Gilead Sciences Inc1.84%0.14%
Colgate-Palmolive Co1.10%0.10%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in VONG
Altria Group Inc 2.21%NVIDIA Corp 13.09%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%Apple Inc 11.97%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%Microsoft Corp 8.98%
Ford Motor Co 2.01%Broadcom Inc 5.78%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%Amazon.com Inc 5.07%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%Alphabet Inc 3.91%
Newmont Corp 1.93%Tesla Inc 3.48%
Verizon Communications Inc 1.90%Meta Platforms Inc 3.20%

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 VONG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerVanguard
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Russell 1000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+23.4%+7.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−10.3 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%95.6%
Holdings100387

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.

VONG in plain words

VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or VONG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and VONG returned +7.2%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or VONG?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 VONG, 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 VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources