PlainIndex

ETF comparison

COWZ vs EFAV

Both Quality Factor.

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF · iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of COWZ and EFAV would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

COWZ only 0.0% Shared 0.0% EFAV only 0.0%
In COWZ only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In EFAV only
0 positions

Holdings data for COWZ covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for EFAV covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

COWZ

Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF

Pacer · Quality Factor

72 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.49%
Net assets
$18.18B
TTM yield
2.03%
Top-10 conc.
—
EFAV

iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF

iShares · Quality Factor

82 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.20%
Net assets
$5.41B
TTM yield
3.01%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

51
Cost
80
80
Tax efficiency
77
100
Liquidity
88
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
COWZ sub-score EFAV

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

EFAV is 29 bps cheaper than COWZ. On a $100,000 position that's about $290/yr more in fees for COWZ.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in COWZ

0 total

Every COWZ position is also held by EFAV.

Only in EFAV

0 total

Every EFAV position is also held by COWZ.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.