Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
COWZ vs XLI: how they differ
COWZ and XLI hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and State Street(R) Industrial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and XLI hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | COWZ | XLI |
|---|---|---|
| Uber Technologies Inc | 2.01% | 2.55% |
| United Parcel Service Inc | 1.69% | 1.39% |
| Automatic Data Processing Inc | 1.31% | 1.55% |
| Delta Air Lines Inc | 1.48% | 1.06% |
| PACCAR Inc | 0.99% | 1.10% |
| United Airlines Holdings Inc | 0.83% | 0.77% |
| Paychex Inc | 0.59% | 0.55% |
| Copart Inc | 0.41% | 0.43% |
| JB Hunt Transport Services Inc | 0.37% | 0.38% |
| Snap-on Inc | 0.34% | 0.36% |
| Fortive Corp | 0.34% | 0.32% |
| Expeditors International of Wa | 0.32% | 0.37% |
| Only in COWZ | Only in XLI |
|---|---|
| QUALCOMM Inc 2.67% | Caterpillar Inc 8.52% |
| Altria Group Inc 2.21% | General Electric Co 6.77% |
| ConocoPhillips 2.17% | GE Vernova Inc 5.48% |
| CVS Health Corp 2.16% | RTX Corp 4.44% |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03% | Boeing Co/The 2.96% |
| Ford Motor Co 2.01% | Eaton Corp PLC 2.87% |
| Pfizer Inc 2.00% | Union Pacific Corp 2.81% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99% | Deere & Co 2.77% |
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 Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF | XLI State Street(R) Industrial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Pacer | State Street |
| What it is | US Cash Cows 100 | Industrials |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.4% | +14.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.9 pts | −3.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.08% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 95.8% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 100 | 81 |
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.
XLI in plain words
XLI is an index equity fund tracking the Industrials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 81 positions, with the top ten at 41.4%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or XLI?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and XLI returned +14.3%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, COWZ or XLI?
- COWZ charges 0.49% a year and XLI charges 0.08%, so XLI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do COWZ and XLI overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 100% of XLI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, COWZ against XLI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-XLI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources