Screener
MCOW vs XMHQ
Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
Key differences
- XMHQ costs 0.24% less per year.
- XMHQ is significantly larger than MCOW — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- XMHQ has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| MCOW | XMHQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.25% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.0M | $5.2B |
| Since | 2025 | 2006 |
| Dividend yield | — | 0.58% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | N/A | +12.7% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +16.1% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +8.6% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 0.70 |
| Volatility 1Y | — | 15.56% |
| Max drawdown | -15.02% | -36.90% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to MCOW and XMHQ
Explore further