IYR vs SCHH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IYR and SCHH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IYR is iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF, while SCHH is Schwab U.S. REIT ETF. SCHH is broader by holdings count, with 120 positions versus 63 for IYR. SCHH has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IYR ahead on AIQ Score, 55 versus 54.
What is the main difference between IYR and SCHH?
SCHH puts 100% of its assets in Real Estate, while IYR spreads across 14 sectors with none above 18%.
| Metric | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.07% |
| Holdings | 63 | 120 |
| Top-10 concentration | 53.2% | 51.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.43% | 3% |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 7,743,637 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.7% | +5.6% |
| YTD return | +4.4% | +8.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.3% | +1.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 14% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -12.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -33.7% | -33.3% |
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.20 | 0.19 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 79/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF vs Schwab U.S. REIT ETF
IYR leads
IYR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IYR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF
Schwab U.S. REIT ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IYR over SCHH, 55 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. IYR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while SCHH holds the stronger quality profile. IYR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IYR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. IYR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IYR vs SCHH: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | IYR | SCHH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.37% | 0.07% | SCHH |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 63 | 120 | SCHH |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 53.2% | 51.8% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.43% | 3% | SCHH |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -33.7% | -33.3% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.2% | 14% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare IYR and SCHH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value37 vs 32IYR +5
- Quality62 vs 66SCHH +4
- Momentum54 vs 51Even
- Risk Resilience80 vs 79Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IYR. IYR’s edge is concentrated in value; SCHH keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
IYR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IYR and SCHH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IYR (iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
SCHH (Schwab U.S. REIT ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | IYR | SCHH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.07% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 63 | 120 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,580,083 | 7,743,637 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 14% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.5% | -12.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.13 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.24 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
IYR and SCHH share 87.63% of their weighted exposure across 51 common holdings.
9 holdings are unique to IYR, and 67 holdings are unique to SCHH. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
IYR is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 53.22% of the fund, against 51.78% for SCHH (63 holdings vs 120). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | IYR | SCHH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLWELLTOWER | 11.39% | 11.28% | 11.28% |
| PLDPROLOGIS REIT | 8.99% | 8.64% | 8.64% |
| DLRDIGITAL REALTY TRUST REIT | 4.92% | 4.64% | 4.64% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 4.41% | 4.53% | 4.41% |
| EQIXEQUINIX REIT | 4.61% | 4.28% | 4.28% |
| AMTAMERICAN TOWER REIT | 4.19% | 4.27% | 4.19% |
| OREALTY INCOME REIT | 4.2% | 4% | 4% |
| PSAPUBLIC STORAGE REIT | 3.7% | 3.56% | 3.56% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IYR adds that SCHH doesn’t
| Holding | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| CBRECBRE GROUP CLASS A | 3.06% | Not held |
| NLYANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT REIT | 1.24% | Not held |
| JLLJONES LANG LASALLE | 1.2% | Not held |
| CSGPCOSTAR GROUP | 0.9% | Not held |
| AGNCAGNC INVESTMENT REIT | 0.9% | Not held |
| STWDSTARWOOD PROPERTY TRUST REIT INC | 0.41% | Not held |
What SCHH adds that IYR doesn’t
| Holding | SCHH | IYR |
|---|---|---|
| AHRAMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT | 0.75% | Not held |
| CTRECARETRUST REIT | 0.66% | Not held |
| RHPRYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES REIT | 0.6% | Not held |
| TRNOTERRENO REALTY REIT | 0.5% | Not held |
| MACMACERICH REIT | 0.46% | Not held |
| EPRTESSENTIAL PROPERTIES REALTY TRUST | 0.45% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
IYR vs SCHH: five-year payout growth
SCHH grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 3.16% a year against IYR's 1.07%. IYR: The 2020 payout was 22.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SCHH: The 2020 payout was 17.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.07% | 3.16% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.210 | $0.544 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.330 | $0.635 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #125 of 138 | #116 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IYR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IYR | Value 37 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -2.2% vs -1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IYR and SCHH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IYR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IYR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IYR +1
- 55 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- IYR +1
- 53 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- IYR +4
- 53 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IYR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.45%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SCHH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.24%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
IYR leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.95%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.93%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1SCHH closes the Value gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to IYR's edge.
- 2SCHH's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IYR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.4% | -2% |
| Year to date | 4.4% | 8.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | 5.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.5 | 60.5 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 27.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.2% | -1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 15.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IYR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -12.5% | -12.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -9% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.2% | 14% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IYR and SCHH?
SCHH puts 100% of its assets in Real Estate, while IYR spreads across 14 sectors with none above 18%.
How much do IYR and SCHH overlap?
IYR and SCHH share 87.63% of their weighted exposure across 51 common holdings. 9 holdings are unique to IYR, and 67 holdings are unique to SCHH. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, IYR or SCHH?
SCHH holds more positions: 120 versus 63 for IYR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHH has the lower expense ratio, 0.07% a year against 0.37% for IYR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHH, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3% against 2.43% for IYR.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 14.2% annualized for IYR and 14% for SCHH.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -33.7% for IYR and -33.3% for SCHH.
Compare IYR and SCHH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.