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 XLY: how they differ

COWZ and XLY hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and COWZ returned more over the year.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF and State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, COWZ and XLY hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions COWZ and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCOWZXLY
Booking Holdings Inc1.87%3.44%
Airbnb Inc1.62%1.49%
Ford Motor Co2.01%1.35%
DR Horton Inc1.21%1.07%
Expedia Group Inc1.03%0.73%
PulteGroup Inc0.58%0.65%
Tapestry Inc0.55%0.74%
Williams-Sonoma Inc0.35%0.68%
NVR Inc0.34%0.46%
Lululemon Athletica Inc0.30%0.30%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in COWZOnly in XLY
QUALCOMM Inc 2.67%Amazon.com Inc 22.24%
Altria Group Inc 2.21%Tesla Inc 19.66%
ConocoPhillips 2.17%Home Depot Inc/The 5.83%
CVS Health Corp 2.16%McDonald's Corp 4.16%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.03%TJX Cos Inc/The 3.93%
Uber Technologies Inc 2.01%Lowe's Cos Inc 3.08%
Pfizer Inc 2.00%Starbucks Corp 2.90%
Diamondback Energy Inc 1.99%Marriott International Inc/MD 2.02%

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 XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
COWZ
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerPacerState Street
What it isUS Cash Cows 100Consumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+23.4%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.9 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.49%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.8%100.0%
Holdings10047

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.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% 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 47 positions, with the top ten at 69.2%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, COWZ or XLY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWZ returned +23.4% and XLY returned −4.1%, so COWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, COWZ or XLY?
COWZ charges 0.49% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so XLY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do COWZ and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of COWZ and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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 XLY, 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 XLY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/COWZ-XLY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources