COWZ vs IGM: Holdings Overlap
COWZPacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF
Pacer · 100 holdings · $18.8B · as of 2026-04-30
IGMiShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
iShares · 288 holdings · $10.7B · as of 2026-03-31
Holdings snapshots are 30 days apart (COWZ: 2026-04-30, IGM: 2026-03-31). Weights and index membership change between snapshots, so the true current overlap is typically higher than shown. For funds tracking the same index, the gap can be 5–15 points.
How similar are COWZ and IGM?
Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ, by Pacer) holds 100 positions; iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF (IGM, by iShares) holds 288. They have 21 holdings in common, and by portfolio weight the two funds are 6.9% identical. In practical terms the pair is lightly overlapping, with most of each portfolio distinct.
- Overlap by Weight
- 6.9%Sum of the smaller weight of each shared holding
- Shared Holdings
- 21COWZ holds 100 · IGM holds 288
- Weight in Shared Holdings
- COWZ 19%·IGM 7%Share of each fund's weight in stocks both funds own
Based on each fund's latest official holdings. How is this calculated?
What makes each fund different
Only in COWZ
79 of 100 positions (80.9% of the fund) are not held by IGM. Showing the top 30 by weight.
Sector Breakdown
| Sector | COWZ | IGM |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 19.4% | 82.6% |
| Health Care | 21.0% | 0.0% |
| Communication Services | 8.1% | 17.1% |
| Energy | 16.4% | 0.0% |
| Industrials | 11.7% | 0.0% |
| Other Sectors | 23.3% | 0.1% |
Share of each fund's portfolio weight by GICS-style sector, compiled from issuer fund data and our own classification of the holdings, not the issuers' published sector charts.
Performance
| Fund | 1M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y (ann.) | 5Y (ann.) | 10Y (ann.) | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COWZ | +7.8% | +15.6% | +28.0% | +12.8% | +11.6% | — | 1.79% |
| IGM | +4.5% | +26.9% | +40.7% | +35.3% | +19.1% | +23.9% | 0.13% |
Total returns including dividends, from adjusted daily closes as of 2026-08-07. 3Y/5Y/10Y are annualized. Yield is trailing-12-month distributions over the last close. Past performance does not predict future results.
Project the growth of $10,000 in COWZ vs IGM →
Shared Holdings(21)
The top 10 shared positions account for 79% of the overlap, led by CRM, QCOM and ACN.
1.76% | 1.15% | 1.15% | |
2.67% | 0.91% | 0.91% | |
1.68% | 0.80% | 0.80% | |
1.63% | 0.79% | 0.79% | |
1.75% | 0.66% | 0.66% | |
0.72% | 0.33% | 0.33% | |
0.78% | 0.25% | 0.25% | |
0.69% | 0.19% | 0.19% | |
0.55% | 0.18% | 0.18% | |
0.75% | 0.18% | 0.18% | |
0.84% | 0.16% | 0.16% | |
0.59% | 0.16% | 0.16% | |
0.80% | 0.14% | 0.14% | |
0.42% | 0.14% | 0.14% | |
0.39% | 0.14% | 0.14% | |
0.59% | 0.13% | 0.13% | |
0.36% | 0.13% | 0.13% | |
1.02% | 0.12% | 0.12% | |
0.25% | 0.11% | 0.11% | |
0.32% | 0.11% | 0.11% | |
0.40% | 0.10% | 0.10% |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do COWZ and IGM overlap?
COWZ and IGM overlap by 6.9% of portfolio weight. They share 21 holdings (COWZ holds 100 positions and IGM holds 288), based on each fund's latest SEC-reported holdings.
Is it redundant to own both COWZ and IGM?
The two portfolios are 6.9% identical by weight. Owning both is not redundant. Most of each portfolio is distinct, so the funds can serve different roles.
What are the biggest shared holdings of COWZ and IGM?
The largest positions held by both funds are CRM, QCOM, ACN, INTU and ADBE. Together the top 10 shared positions account for 79% of the total overlap.
What does COWZ own that IGM doesn't?
79 positions (80.9% of COWZ) are unique to COWZ, led by MO, COP and CVS. In the other direction, 267 positions (93.0% of IGM) are unique to IGM.