Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
COWZ vs XLV: how they differ
COWZ and XLV hold 17% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and XLV hold 17% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | COWZ | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| CVS Health Corp | 2.16% | 2.30% |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co | 2.03% | 2.05% |
| Pfizer Inc | 2.00% | 2.40% |
| Gilead Sciences Inc | 1.84% | 2.74% |
| McKesson Corp | 1.79% | 1.59% |
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 1.17% | 1.09% |
| HCA Healthcare Inc | 1.65% | 1.06% |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 1.62% | 0.97% |
| Cencora Inc | 1.03% | 0.96% |
| IQVIA Holdings Inc | 0.62% | 0.56% |
| Biogen Inc | 0.67% | 0.56% |
| ResMed Inc | 0.50% | 0.49% |
| Only in COWZ | Only in XLV |
|---|---|
| QUALCOMM Inc 2.67% | Eli Lilly & Co 16.56% |
| Altria Group Inc 2.21% | Johnson & Johnson 10.67% |
| ConocoPhillips 2.17% | AbbVie Inc 7.76% |
| Ford Motor Co 2.01% | UnitedHealth Group Inc 6.59% |
| Uber Technologies Inc 2.01% | Merck & Co Inc 5.54% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99% | Amgen Inc 3.41% |
| Newmont Corp 1.93% | Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 3.25% |
| Verizon Communications Inc 1.90% | Abbott Laboratories 2.76% |
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 | XLV State Street(R) Health Care 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 | Health care |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.4% | +20.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.9 pts | +2.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.08% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 95.8% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 100 | 59 |
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.
XLV in plain words
XLV is an index equity fund tracking the Health care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 59 positions, with the top ten at 61.7%. It sat 5.9% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or XLV?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and XLV returned +20.4%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, COWZ or XLV?
- COWZ charges 0.49% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so XLV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do COWZ and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 17% 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 XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources