QUAL vs SCHV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QUAL and SCHV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QUAL is iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF, while SCHV is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF. SCHV is broader by holdings count, with 559 positions versus 121 for QUAL. QUAL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QUAL ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 58.
What is the main difference between QUAL and SCHV?
SCHV holds 559 positions to QUAL's 121, and 24% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 121 | 559 |
| Top-10 concentration | 44.5% | 20.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.86% | 1.85% |
| Average volume | 4,268,662 | 3,177,938 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12.3% | +17.6% |
| YTD return | +10.4% | +14.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.9% | +9.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 11.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -7.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.2% | -19.8% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.11 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 37/100 | 48/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF vs Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
QUAL leads
QUAL leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QUAL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QUAL over SCHV, 61 versus 58 as of Nov 7, 2026. QUAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while SCHV holds the stronger momentum profile. QUAL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. QUAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QUAL vs SCHV: 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 | QUAL | SCHV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% | SCHV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 121 | 559 | SCHV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 44.5% | 20.9% | SCHV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.86% | 1.85% | SCHV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.2% | -19.8% | SCHV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.6% | 11.8% | 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 QUAL and SCHV 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.
- Value72 vs 52QUAL +20
- Momentum37 vs 48SCHV +11
- Quality63 vs 64Even
- Risk Resilience78 vs 77Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QUAL. QUAL’s edge is concentrated in value; SCHV keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +38
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
The lead changed hands: QUAL moved ahead of SCHV in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QUAL and SCHV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
SCHV (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
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 | QUAL | SCHV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 121 | 559 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,268,662 | 3,177,938 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 11.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -7.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 1.14 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.69 | 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
QUAL and SCHV share 23.53% of their weighted exposure across 76 common holdings.
42 holdings are unique to QUAL, and 479 holdings are unique to SCHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QUAL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 44.53% of the fund, against 20.86% for SCHV (121 holdings vs 559). 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 | QUAL | SCHV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.32% | 2.18% | 2.18% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 2.16% | 2.04% | 2.04% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 1.84% | 2.96% | 1.84% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 3.79% | 1.19% | 1.19% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 2.88% | 1.15% | 1.15% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.42% | 1.14% | 1.14% |
| WMTWALMART INC | 0.94% | 1.48% | 0.94% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 0.81% | 1.06% | 0.81% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QUAL adds that SCHV doesn’t
| Holding | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 7.62% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.83% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 6.56% | Not held |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 4.36% | Not held |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 3.79% | 1.19% |
| LLYELI LILLY | 3.61% | Not held |
What SCHV adds that QUAL doesn’t
| Holding | SCHV | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.51% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION CORP | 1.58% | Not held |
| ABBVABBVIE | 1.44% | Not held |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 1.35% | Not held |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA | 1.3% | 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.
QUAL vs SCHV: five-year payout growth
QUAL grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 2.85% a year against SCHV's -0.06%.
| Dividend metric | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.85% | -0.06% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.615 | $0.601 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.859 | $0.600 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #117 of 138 | #129 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 QUAL. 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 | 61 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QUAL | Value 72 vs 52 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 3.1% vs 2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 vs 77 |
| 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 QUAL and SCHV 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 QUAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QUAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QUAL +3
- 61 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHV +15
- 50 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHV +2
- 56 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Nov 6 when QUAL moved ahead of SCHV.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHV
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QUAL 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ +11 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.32%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1SCHV closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to QUAL's edge.
- 2SCHV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QUAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
SCHV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | -2.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.2% | 3.9% |
| Year to date | 10.4% | 14.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | 17.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.1 | 49.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.6 | 21.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.1% | 2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.6% | 15.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QUAL | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.11 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -7.3% |
| Current drawdown | -3.7% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.6% | 11.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QUAL and SCHV?
SCHV holds 559 positions to QUAL's 121, and 24% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QUAL and SCHV overlap?
QUAL and SCHV share 23.53% of their weighted exposure across 76 common holdings. 42 holdings are unique to QUAL, and 479 holdings are unique to SCHV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QUAL or SCHV?
SCHV holds more positions: 559 versus 121 for QUAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHV has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.15% for QUAL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.85% against 0.86% for QUAL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 12.6% annualized for QUAL and 11.8% for SCHV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -19.8% against -28.2% for QUAL.
Compare QUAL and SCHV 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.