Screener
XMHQ vs MCOW
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF vs Pacer S&P MidCap 400 Quality FCF Aristocrats 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
| XMHQ | MCOW | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.25% | 0.49% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $5.2B | $1.0M |
| Since | 2006 | 2025 |
| Dividend yield | 0.58% | — |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +12.7% | N/A |
| CAGR 3Y | +16.1% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | +8.6% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.70 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 15.56% | — |
| Max drawdown | -36.90% | -15.02% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to XMHQ and MCOW
Explore further