COWG vs IMCB: Differences, Returns & Fees
COWG and IMCB hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and IMCB returned +19.2% over the year. Net assets: $2.4bn on Oct 2, 2026 for Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF, and $1.7bn on Oct 20, 2026 for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF.
IMCB costs 0.45 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 7.0 points; COWG is 1.4 times larger.
| COWG | IMCB | |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.04% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 2, 2026 | $2.4bn | $1.7bn |
| Total return, 1 year | +12.2% | +19.2% |
| What it tracks | Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index | Morningstar US Mid Cap Index |
| Holdings in common | 8% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 28.4% | 7.9% |
| Below its high | 3.5%, high on Oct 9, 2026 | 3.3%, high on Aug 14, 2026 |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 19, 2026.
COWG and IMCB are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. COWG follows Pacer US Large Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index and IMCB follows Morningstar US Mid Cap Index.
- Holdings in common. 8% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 19, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 20, 2026 COWG returned +12.2% and IMCB +19.2% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 7.0 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, COWG and IMCB hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 19, 2026.
half
8% in common
On the same fields
COWG and IMCB on the fields both publish, as of Oct 20, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
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.
About IMCB
IMCB tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +19.2% with distributions reinvested. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 19, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 394 positions, with the top ten at 7.9%. It sat 3.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, COWG or IMCB?
- In the year to Oct 20, 2026, with distributions reinvested, COWG returned +12.2% and IMCB +19.2%.
- Which is cheaper, COWG or IMCB?
- IMCB is cheaper, by 0.45 percentage points a year. That is about $45 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, COWG against IMCB, data as of Oct 20, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cowg-vs-imcb
ETFIQ. (Oct 20, 2026). COWG against IMCB. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cowg-vs-imcb
[COWG against IMCB (ETFIQ, Oct 20, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cowg-vs-imcb)
Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.