RFIX vs SCHO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
RFIX and SCHO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. RFIX is Simplify Bond Bull ETF, while SCHO is Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF. SCHO is broader by holdings count, with 97 positions versus 9 for RFIX. SCHO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 43.
What is the main difference between RFIX and SCHO?
SCHO holds 97 positions to RFIX's 9.
| Metric | RFIX | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 9 | 97 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.47% | 3.84% |
| Average volume | 380,593 | 4,559,758 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -18% | -2.3% |
| YTD return | +0.5% | -2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 27.7% | 1.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.3% | -2.6% |
| Beta | 0.10 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | -3.57 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.11 | -3.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 43/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 62/100 | 48/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 27/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Simplify Bond Bull ETF vs Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF
SCHO leads
SCHO leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support SCHO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Simplify Bond Bull ETF
Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHO over RFIX, 64 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while RFIX holds the stronger momentum profile. SCHO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SCHO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Simplify Bond Bull ETF and Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
RFIX vs SCHO: 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 | RFIX | SCHO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.5% | 0.03% | SCHO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 9 | 97 | SCHO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.47% | 3.84% | RFIX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -23.3% | -2.6% | SCHO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 27.7% | 1.7% | SCHO |
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 RFIX and SCHO 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.
- Risk Resilience27 vs 72SCHO +45
- Value36 vs 73SCHO +37
- Quality43 vs 66SCHO +23
- Momentum62 vs 48RFIX +14
4 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHO. SCHO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; RFIX keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +19
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
SCHO's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RFIX and SCHO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHO (Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
RFIX (Simplify Bond Bull ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 28% against 1.4%.
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 | RFIX | SCHO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 9 | 97 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 380,593 | 4,559,758 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 27.7% | 1.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.3% | -2.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | -3.57 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.10 | 0.03 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHO | 43 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHO | Value 36 vs 73 |
| Technicals | SCHO | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day -4.2% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHO | Risk Resilience 27 vs 72 |
| 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 RFIX and SCHO 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 SCHO.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20SCHO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHO +21
- 43 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHO +27
- 37 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHO +20
- 38 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RFIX
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.14%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.2%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SCHO 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 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.04%, AIQ +5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.04%, 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.
- 1RFIX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHO's edge.
- 2RFIX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SCHO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
SCHO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | RFIX | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.2% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.7% | -1.5% |
| Year to date | 0.5% | -2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18% | -2.3% |
Technicals
SCHO has the stronger structure| Metric | RFIX | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.9 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 29.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.2% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 1.4% |
Risk
SCHO is the more resilient| Metric | RFIX | SCHO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | -3.57 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.11 | -3.96 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -2.6% |
| Current drawdown | -19.1% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.7% | 1.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -0.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between RFIX and SCHO?
SCHO holds 97 positions to RFIX's 9.
Which ETF is more diversified, RFIX or SCHO?
SCHO holds more positions: 97 versus 9 for RFIX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.5% for RFIX.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RFIX, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.47% against 3.84% for SCHO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
RFIX has been more volatile over the past year, at 27.7% annualized against 1.7% for SCHO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHO fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -2.6% against -23.3% for RFIX.
Compare RFIX and SCHO 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.