QVAL vs SCHG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QVAL and SCHG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QVAL is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF, while SCHG is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF. SCHG is broader by holdings count, with 196 positions versus 52 for QVAL. SCHG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QVAL ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 48.
What is the main difference between QVAL and SCHG?
SCHG puts 54% of its assets in Technology, while QVAL spreads across 9 sectors with none above 27%.
| Metric | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 52 | 196 |
| Top-10 concentration | 23.7% | 52.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.4% | 0.42% |
| Average volume | 49,819 | 7,857,388 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +35% | +0.4% |
| YTD return | +28.4% | +1.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.5% | +10.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 17.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.7% | -15.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.1% | -34.6% |
| Beta | 0.54 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.81 | -0.01 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 63/100 | 26/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 68/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF vs Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
QVAL leads
QVAL leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QVAL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QVAL over SCHG, 57 versus 48 as of Nov 7, 2026. QVAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while SCHG holds the stronger quality profile. QVAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QVAL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QVAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QVAL vs SCHG: 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 | QVAL | SCHG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.28% | 0.04% | SCHG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 52 | 196 | SCHG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 23.7% | 52.2% | QVAL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.4% | 0.42% | QVAL |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.1% | -34.6% | QVAL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.5% | 17.7% | QVAL |
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 QVAL and SCHG 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.
- Momentum63 vs 26QVAL +37
- Quality40 vs 71SCHG +31
- Value62 vs 36QVAL +26
- Risk Resilience68 vs 63QVAL +5
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QVAL. QVAL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; SCHG keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum -4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QVAL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QVAL and SCHG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QVAL (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 24.7% against 18.7%.
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 | QVAL | SCHG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 52 | 196 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 49,819 | 7,857,388 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 17.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.7% | -15.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.01 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.54 | 1.24 | 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
QVAL and SCHG share 0.82% of their weighted exposure across 7 common holdings.
44 holdings are unique to QVAL, and 186 holdings are unique to SCHG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 52.16% of the fund, against 23.66% for QVAL (196 holdings vs 52). 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 | QVAL | SCHG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.27% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| RMDResMed Inc | 2.06% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| CCLCarnival Corp Ltd | 1.75% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| ULTAULTA BEAUTY INC | 1.93% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| STZConstellation Brands Inc | 1.96% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| NVRNVR Inc | 1.86% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| DECKDeckers Outdoor Corp | 1.67% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QVAL adds that SCHG doesn’t
| Holding | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.94% | Not held |
| HLHecla Mining Co | 2.76% | Not held |
| NEMNewmont Corp | 2.74% | Not held |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.27% | 0.31% |
| APAAPA Corp | 2.26% | Not held |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.2% | Not held |
What SCHG adds that QVAL doesn’t
| Holding | SCHG | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 10.8% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 9.79% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 7.47% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON COM INC | 5.03% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 3.98% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 3.49% | 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.
QVAL vs SCHG: five-year payout growth
SCHG grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.82% a year against QVAL's 6.14%. QVAL: The 2020 payout was 13.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SCHG: The 2020 payout was 12.0% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.14% | 6.82% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.522 | $0.084 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.703 | $0.117 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #85 of 138 | #78 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QVAL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QVAL | 57 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QVAL | Value 62 vs 36 |
| Technicals | QVAL | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -6.7%; vs 200-day 10.7% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | QVAL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 63 |
| 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 QVAL and SCHG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 QVAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QVAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QVAL +9
- 57 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- QVAL +11
- 61 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QVAL +4
- 61 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QVAL +1
- 59 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when SCHG moved ahead of QVAL.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QVAL
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHG
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QVAL 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.07%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.01%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1SCHG closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to QVAL's edge.
- 2SCHG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QVAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
QVAL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.8% | -8.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | -7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.2% | -2.9% |
| Year to date | 28.4% | 1.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | 0.4% |
Technicals
QVAL has the stronger structure| Metric | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.4 | 32.2 |
| ADX (14) | 40.8 | 29.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.7% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 24.7% |
Risk
QVAL is the more resilient| Metric | QVAL | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.81 | -0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -6.7% | -15.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QVAL and SCHG?
SCHG puts 54% of its assets in Technology, while QVAL spreads across 9 sectors with none above 27%.
How much do QVAL and SCHG overlap?
QVAL and SCHG share 0.82% of their weighted exposure across 7 common holdings. 44 holdings are unique to QVAL, and 186 holdings are unique to SCHG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QVAL or SCHG?
SCHG holds more positions: 196 versus 52 for QVAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.28% for QVAL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QVAL, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.4% against 0.42% for SCHG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHG has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.7% annualized against 14.5% for QVAL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QVAL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.1% against -34.6% for SCHG.
Compare QVAL and SCHG 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.