BUL vs ILCG: Grades, Fees and Holdings Compared

Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF

BULDNYSE Arca

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF

ILCGANYSE Arca

Overlap

1.7%by weight

Expense ratio

ILCG −0.56pt a year

BUL0.60%ILCG0.04%

Avg volume · 30D

ILCG 7.5×the volume

BUL9.42KILCG70.4K

5Y return · a year

ILCG +0.8pt

BUL+9.0%ILCG+9.8%

BUL vs ILCG Performance

Oct 29, 2021 – Oct 30, 2026

+53.9%BUL+59.5%ILCG

Expense ratio: BUL 0.60%; ILCG 0.04%, better
Fund size: BUL $127M; ILCG $3B
1Y total return: BUL +13.9%, better; ILCG +3.2%
Yield (12M): BUL 0.16%; ILCG 0.44%, better
Holdings: BUL 51; ILCG 328
Avg volume (30D): BUL 9.42K sh; ILCG 70.4K sh, better
NAV per share: BUL $60.71; ILCG $109.98
52W range

ETF.net Grade

Pillar letters and Scores for BUL, ILCG, with each pillar’s weight
Pillar	BUL	ILCG
Cost30% weight	F6	A96Higher
Mission25% weight	Not scored	A100
Risk15% weight	B67Higher	C44
Tradability15% weight	F22	B64Higher
Holdings10% weight	C50Higher	C49
Durability5% weight	C41	B64Higher

Rank among US Growth Index funds

How we build Categories ›

Same Category. BUL and ILCG are both graded against the same 35 US Growth Index funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

US Growth Index⁠

Category · 35 funds

See all 35 ›

ILCG ranks 2nd and BUL 35th of 35 funds in the US Growth Index Category.

Rank 1ASPYGState Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETFScore 84
Rank 2AILCGiShares Morningstar Growth ETFScore 78
Rank 2AIMCGiShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETFScore 78
Rank 34DFSGSFirst Trust SMID Growth Strength ETFScore 36
Rank 35DBULPacer US Cash Cows Growth ETFScore 29

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

BULDPacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF

ILCGAiShares Morningstar Growth ETF

In short

BUL Growth stocks that actually generate cash. BUL screens the growth half of the S&P 900 and keeps about 50 names that clear free cash flow and quality tests, Pacer's Cash Cows logic pointed at growth.

ILCG Growth by Morningstar's rulebook. A 2004-vintage iShares fund that screens large and mid caps for above-average earnings, sales, cash-flow and book-value growth, and charges four basis points to do it.

Stated mandate

BUL The Fund seeks capital appreciation by tracking the Pacer US Cash Cows Growth Index, which screens the S&P 900 Pure Growth Index and selects leading companies using free cash flow yield and quality criteria.

ILCG The fund aims to follow an index of U.S. large- and mid-cap stocks chosen for above-average earnings, sales, cash-flow, and book-value growth.

Why people hold it

BUL Cash flow is the gate, not the story. The index starts from S&P 900 pure growth names and keeps only those clearing free cash flow and quality screens.paceretfs.com
Deliberately concentrated: about 50 holdings, so the screen actually shows up in the portfolio instead of getting diluted by hundreds of names.
Live since 2019 and pays shareholders quarterly, with a published rules-based index behind every rebalance.

ILCG 0.04% a year. The typical fund in its factor peer group charges roughly eight times that, so almost none of the return leaks out the fee door.
Uses Morningstar's growth definition (earnings, sales, cash flow, book value) rather than S&P's or Russell's, and reaches into mid caps, not just the S&P 500.ishares.com
Trading since 2004, a multi-billion-dollar fund holding roughly 300 stocks. Long-running plumbing, not a launch-week experiment.
Tracking has been tight, and the fund sits in the upper half of its factor cohort overall, with cost doing much of the heavy lifting.

Worth knowing

BUL Cost is the trade-off: 0.60% a year, versus roughly 0.18% for the typical US growth fund and a few basis points at VUG or SCHG.
Thinly traded compared with the category's giants, so spreads and order size deserve more attention here.
A rules screen means it can look very different from a plain growth index in any given stretch, for better or worse.

ILCG Pure growth means no value ballast, and the ride has been bumpier than most funds in its factor group. The style can sit out of favor for long stretches.
Concentration runs high for the cohort: cap-weighted growth screens funnel a big share of the fund into the same handful of mega-cap names.
Moderately traded, not a tape leader. Sibling IUSG applies S&P's growth definition at the same 0.04%, so the pick is which index rulebook you prefer.

Full BUL profile⁠

Full ILCG profile⁠

BUL vs ILCG Holdings

As of Oct 23, 2026

How BUL and ILCG differ

Overlap by weight

1.7%

Shared holdings make up 45.1% of BUL and 1.7% of ILCG.

Level by level

Holdings13 in both1.7%
Sector11 Sectors50.5%
Countryby domicile99.5%
Asset classEquity100%

Sector

Sector weights in BUL and ILCG, widest gap first
Sector	More in BULMore in ILCG	BUL	ILCG
Technology	ILCG +31.2 points	22.3%	53.5%
Consumer Discretionary	BUL +18.6 points	28.3%	9.7%
Health Care	BUL +17.8 points	24.4%	6.5%
Communication	ILCG +7.2 points	1.3%	8.5%
Materials	BUL +6.0 points	7.4%	1.4%
Financials	ILCG +5.5 points	0.0%	5.5%
Energy	BUL +5.5 points	6.3%	0.8%
Industrials	ILCG +3.0 points	6.7%	9.7%
Consumer Staples	BUL +1.7 points	3.5%	1.8%
Real Estate	ILCG +1.6 points	0.0%	1.6%
Utilities	ILCG +0.9 points	0.0%	0.9%

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in BUL and ILCG, widest gap first
Country	More in BULMore in ILCG	BUL	ILCG
United States	BUL +0.5 points	100.0%	99.5%
Other countries (5)	ILCG +0.5 points	0.0%	0.5%

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

BUL44.3%
ILCG49.8%

Securities held

BUL50
ILCG325

Asset class

BUL: Equity
ILCG: Equity

Holdings

Only in BUL37
In both13
Only in ILCG312

Only in BUL

37 securities, 54.9% of BUL by weight

HCA Healthcare Inc5.48%
Newmont Corp4.71%
Booking Holdings Inc4.64%
Ralph Lauren Corp2.55%
Tenet Healthcare Corp2.45%
Dynatrace Inc2.12%
Medpace Holdings Inc2.09%
Exelixis Inc1.81%
Coeur Mining Inc.1.76%
Neurocrine Biosciences Inc1.63%
Halozyme Therapeutics Inc1.60%
Coca-Cola Consolidated Inc1.58%
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC1.56%
CACI International Inc1.55%
Five Below Inc1.40%
New York Times Co/The1.26%
Globus Medical Inc1.20%
Antero Midstream Corp1.11%
Sanmina Corp1.04%
Paylocity Holding Corp1.02%
Tetra Tech Inc1.02%
InterDigital Inc0.98%
NewMarket Corp0.92%
Dropbox Inc0.90%
Brinker International Inc0.88%
Wynn Resorts Ltd0.88%
Celsius Holdings Inc0.81%
EnerSys0.72%
ExlService Holdings Inc0.70%
Doximity Inc0.68%
Pegasystems Inc0.65%
Churchill Downs Inc0.65%
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings Inc0.62%
Option Care Health Inc0.53%
Grand Canyon Education Inc0.47%
Travel + Leisure Co0.47%
Planet Fitness Inc0.44%

Only in ILCG

312 securities, 98.2% of ILCG by weight

NVIDIA15.40%
Apple8.12%
Broadcom Inc4.92%
Amazon.com Inc4.21%
Eli Lilly3.66%
Microsoft3.08%
Alphabet Class A3.01%
Advanced Micro Devices2.66%
Alphabet Class C2.43%
Tesla Inc2.26%
Micron Technology1.77%
Meta Platforms Class A1.59%
Palantir Technologies Class A1.32%
Visa Class A1.14%
Ge Aerospace1.01%
Applied Material Inc1.00%
Intel Corporation0.99%
Lam Research0.97%
Palo Alto Networks0.96%
Mastercard Class A0.94%
Netflix0.84%
Crowdstrike Holdings Class A0.80%
Walmart0.69%
Kla0.67%
Costco Wholesale Corp0.63%
Amphenol Corp Class A0.63%
Arista Networks0.56%
Marvell Technology0.55%
Welltower0.55%
Caterpillar Inc0.51%
Intuitive Surgical0.49%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC0.47%
Boeing0.44%
Western Digital Corp0.43%
Texas Instrument0.40%
Analog Devices0.35%
Servicenow0.35%
Oracle0.35%
Snowflake0.33%
Corning0.32%
Quanta Services Inc0.30%
Cadence Design Systems0.29%
Johnson Controls International PLC0.29%
Cloudflare Class A0.29%
Freeport Mcmoran Inc0.29%
Vertiv Holdings Class A0.28%
Dell Technologies Inc Class C0.28%
Fortinet0.27%
Motorola Solutions Inc0.26%
Howmet Aerospace0.26%

Weight gaps

All 13 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in BUL and ILCG, widest gap first
Holding	More in BULMore in ILCG	BUL	ILCG
Uber Technologies IncUBER	BUL +4.70 points	4.81%	0.11%
GE Vernova IncGEV	BUL +4.18 points	4.92%	0.74%
Carnival Corp LtdCCL	BUL +4.17 points	4.22%	0.05%
Sandisk CorpSNDK	BUL +4.04 points	4.29%	0.25%
AppLovin CorpAPP	BUL +4.00 points	4.20%	0.20%
Expedia Group IncEXPE	BUL +3.81 points	3.87%	0.06%
TechnipFMC PLCFTI	BUL +3.04 points	3.10%	0.06%
Ulta Beauty IncULTA	BUL +2.88 points	2.93%	0.05%
Las Vegas Sands CorpLVS	BUL +2.72 points	2.74%	0.02%
United Therapeutics CorpUTHR	BUL +2.69 points	2.73%	0.04%
Incyte CorpINCY	BUL +2.57 points	2.60%	0.03%
Tapestry IncTPR	BUL +2.54 points	2.59%	0.05%
First Solar IncFSLR	BUL +2.09 points	2.12%	0.03%

All 52 BUL holdings⁠All 325 ILCG holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

BUL vs ILCG Cost

Overpaying BUL vs ILCG

$10,968

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

BUL 0.60%
$11,817
ILCG 0.04%
$849

Amount$10,000

Years30 years

Cost over time

BUL 0.60%
ILCG 0.04%
Overpaying

Year by year

Year	BUL	ILCG	Overpaying
10	$1,076	$73	$1,003
20	$4,116	$288	$3,828
30	$11,817	$849	$10,968

Expense ratio

0.60%BUL
0.04%ILCG, cheaper

ILCG0.04%BUL0.60%

0.03%0.70%

Middle half of US Growth Index funds
Median 0.18%

ILCG 2nd cheapest of 35 funds

BUL 32nd cheapest of 35 funds

BUL vs ILCG Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026

Yield (12M): BUL 0.16%; ILCG 0.44%, better
Payout (12M): BUL $0.10; ILCG $0.48
Last payment: BUL $0.0061; ILCG $0.14
Ex-dividend: BUL Jun 4, 2026; ILCG Sep 15, 2026
Paid on: BUL Jun 8, 2026; ILCG Sep 18, 2026
Frequency: BUL Twice a year; ILCG Quarterly

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

BULTwice a year · 26 paymentsAll BUL payments⁠

ILCGQuarterly · 40 paymentsAll ILCG payments⁠

BUL vs ILCG Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

BUL
ILCG

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years: BUL 14.0%, betterILCG 17.8%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years: BUL 1.13, betterILCG 1.06
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years: BUL −27.9%, betterILCG −35.4%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years: BUL 0.82ILCG 1.23; Market = 1

BUL and ILCG in the news

All news⁠

Best ETFs
The best growth ETF is the cheap one on the index you want
Updated Nov 2, 2026ILCG

Popular comparisons

BULDvsSPYGA
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF · State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.60% · 0.04%
Category
ILCGAvsSPYGA
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF · State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.04% · 0.04%
Category
BULDvsIMCGA
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF · iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.60% · 0.06%
Category
ILCGAvsIMCGA
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF · iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.04% · 0.06%
Category
BULDvsSCHGA
Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF · Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.60% · 0.04%
Category
ILCGAvsSCHGA
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF · Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Expense ratio
0.04% · 0.04%
Category

BUL vs ILCG

In short

Stated mandate

Why people hold it

Worth knowing

How BUL and ILCG differ

Level by level

Sector

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Concentration

Asset class

Holdings

Only in BUL

Only in ILCG

Weight gaps

Cost over time

Year by year

Distribution history

Fall from peak · 5 years

Risk facts

The best growth ETF is the cheap one on the index you want

How BUL and ILCG differ

Level by level

Sector

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Concentration

Asset class

Holdings

Only in BUL

Only in ILCG

Weight gaps