CGMM vs COWG: Differences, Returns & Fees
CGMM and COWG hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and COWG returned +12.2% over the year. Net assets: $3.5bn on Oct 19, 2026 for Capital Group U.S. Small and Mid Cap ETF, and $2.4bn on Oct 2, 2026 for Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF.
COWG costs 0.02 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 1.1 points.
| CGMM | COWG | |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.51% | 0.49% |
| Net assets, CGMM as of Oct 19, 2026 and COWG as of Oct 2, 2026 | $3.5bn | $2.4bn |
| Total return, 1 year | +11.1% | +12.2% |
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index |
| Holdings in common | 3% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 18.7% | 28.4% |
| Below its high | 6.8%, high on Aug 13, 2026 | 3.5%, high on Oct 9, 2026 |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated May 31, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026.
CGMM and COWG are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. CGMM follows No index, actively managed and COWG follows Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index.
- Holdings in common. 3% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated May 31, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026).
- One-year total return (similar). Over 1 year to Oct 20, 2026 CGMM returned +11.1% and COWG +12.2% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 1.1 points.
Data as of Oct 20, 2026. The differences are picked by a fixed rule, in a fixed order; the PDF prints it. Page 2 has the returns, overlap, risks and sources.
Take this comparison to a client
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Not advice. The brief uses the figures on this page, with the data date and a report id. Saved comparisons are listed on your saved page; privacy.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CGMM and COWG hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated May 31, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026.
half
3% in common
On the same fields
CGMM and COWG on the fields both publish, as of Oct 20, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
About CGMM
CGMM is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.51% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 45% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 114 positions, with the top ten at 18.7%. It sat 6.8% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +11.1% with distributions reinvested, against +15.0% for its benchmark, the Russell 3000 Index.
About COWG
COWG tracks an index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.49% a year. By its holdings filed for Jul 31, 2026, 65% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 100 positions, with the top ten at 28.4%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Oct 9, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +15.1% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, CGMM or COWG?
- In the year to Oct 20, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGMM returned +11.1% and COWG +12.2%.
- Which is cheaper, CGMM or COWG?
- COWG is cheaper, by 0.02 percentage points a year. That is about $2 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, CGMM against COWG, data as of Oct 20, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgmm-vs-cowg
ETFIQ. (Oct 20, 2026). CGMM against COWG. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgmm-vs-cowg
[CGMM against COWG (ETFIQ, Oct 20, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cgmm-vs-cowg)
Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.