COWZ vs MTUM: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) — both US Quality / Factor funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 29, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
COWZ and MTUM compete directly — both are US Quality / Factor funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — MTUM scores higher: 66.8 (Grade B) versus 65.8 for COWZ. That doesn't make COWZ a bad fund; it means MTUM currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| COWZ | MTUM | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Quality / Factor | US Quality / Factor |
| Expense ratio | 0.49% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $17.6B | $29.0B |
| Dividend yield | 1.99% | 0.54% |
| 1-year return | +20.36% | +22.01% |
| 3-year return | +41.65% | +107.53% |
| Volatility | 11.85% | 24.74% |
| Max drawdown | -22.00% | -20.99% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.30 | 0.69 |
| ETFValuer score | 65.8 | 66.8 |
| Grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #161 | #151 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
MTUM is the cheaper fund, charging 0.15% a year versus 0.49% for COWZ — a gap of 0.34 percentage points (about $34.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What COWZ's Fees Cost You
COWZ charges an expense ratio of 0.49% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, MTUM returned +107.53% versus +41.65% for COWZ — a gap of about 65.9 percentage points. On risk, MTUM has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-20.99% vs. -22.00%). COWZ currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.30 vs. 0.69), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (750 shared trading days), COWZ and MTUM show a low correlation of 0.453 — largely independent of each other. These funds move largely on their own schedules. Combining them is a real diversification decision rather than a redundant one, which is the case where owning both can genuinely reduce portfolio volatility.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.453 | Low — largely independent of each other |
| R-squared | 20.5% | 20.5% of COWZ's daily moves are explained by MTUM's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 20.49% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | COWZ +11.93% · MTUM +27.07% | MTUM ahead by 15.14 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, COWZ finished as much as +2.8 points ahead of MTUM at the best extreme and -36.7 points at the worst — a 39.5-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
COWZ and MTUM share no companies among their top 10 reported holdings. That points to genuinely different exposure, so holding both is more likely to diversify than to duplicate. Full portfolios may still overlap further down the list.
Based on the top 10 holdings in each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean COWZ if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 1.99% against 0.54%
- It has been the calmer ride (11.8% volatility vs 24.7%)
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.30 beats 0.69
Lean MTUM if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.15% vs 0.49%, about $34 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 107.5% over 3 years against 41.6%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is COWZ or MTUM better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — MTUM scores higher: 66.8 (Grade B) versus 65.8 for COWZ. That doesn't make COWZ a bad fund; it means MTUM currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, COWZ or MTUM?
MTUM currently has the lower expense ratio (0.15% vs. 0.49%).
Can I hold both COWZ and MTUM?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. COWZ and MTUM correlate at only 0.45 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.