RSP vs SCHA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
RSP and SCHA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. RSP is Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF, while SCHA is Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF. SCHA is broader by holdings count, with 1,705 positions versus 509 for RSP. SCHA is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RSP ahead on AIQ Score, 70 versus 59.
What is the main difference between RSP and SCHA?
SCHA holds 1,705 positions to RSP's 509, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 509 | 1,705 |
| Top-10 concentration | 3.2% | 10.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.47% | 1.13% |
| Average volume | 7,962,749 | 2,890,861 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.4% | +16.8% |
| YTD return | +12.7% | +14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.1% | +5.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 18.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.3% | -11.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -21.4% | -30.8% |
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.20 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | 1.28 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 70/100 | 59/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 81/100 | 48/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF vs Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
RSP leads
RSP leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support RSP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RSP over SCHA, 70 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. RSP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while SCHA holds the stronger value profile. RSP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor RSP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RSP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
RSP vs SCHA: 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 | RSP | SCHA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.2% | 0.03% | SCHA |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 509 | 1,705 | SCHA |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 3.2% | 10.7% | RSP |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.47% | 1.13% | RSP |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -21.4% | -30.8% | RSP |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.4% | 18.7% | RSP |
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 RSP and SCHA 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.
- Momentum81 vs 48RSP +33
- Quality72 vs 64RSP +8
- Risk Resilience84 vs 76RSP +8
- Value51 vs 55SCHA +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor RSP. RSP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; SCHA keeps a meaningful value 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 +20
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
RSP's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RSP and SCHA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RSP (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 10.3%.
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 | RSP | SCHA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 509 | 1,705 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,962,749 | 2,890,861 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 18.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.3% | -11.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 0.74 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.20 | 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
RSP and SCHA share 0.57% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings.
502 holdings are unique to RSP, and 1,696 holdings are unique to SCHA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHA is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 10.68% of the fund, against 3.16% for RSP (1,705 holdings vs 509). 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 | RSP | SCHA | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 0.21% | 1.56% | 0.21% |
| SNDKSANDISK | 0.2% | 5.37% | 0.2% |
| SATSECHOSTAR CLASS A | 0.15% | 0.27% | 0.15% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What RSP adds that SCHA doesn’t
| Holding | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| MRNAModerna Inc | 0.58% | Not held |
| VEEVVeeva Systems Inc | 0.31% | Not held |
| ZBRAZebra Technologies Corp | 0.31% | Not held |
| VLOValero Energy Corp | 0.29% | Not held |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 0.29% | Not held |
| CRLCharles River Laboratories International Inc | 0.28% | Not held |
What SCHA adds that RSP doesn’t
| Holding | SCHA | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| SNDKSANDISK | 5.37% | 0.2% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 1.56% | 0.21% |
| RVMDREVOLUTION MEDICINES | 0.87% | Not held |
| ATIATI | 0.58% | Not held |
| GHGUARDANT HEALTH | 0.45% | Not held |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 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.
RSP vs SCHA: five-year payout growth
SCHA grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 8.89% a year against RSP's 8.41%. SCHA: The 2020 payout was 11.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 8.41% | 8.89% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.094 | $0.234 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.136 | $0.358 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #68 of 138 | #65 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor RSP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RSP | 70 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHA | Value 51 vs 55 |
| Technicals | RSP | Price vs 50-day 0.5% vs -3%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | RSP | Risk Resilience 84 vs 76 |
| 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 RSP and SCHA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 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 RSP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RSP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RSP +11
- 70 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- RSP +7
- 65 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- RSP +2
- 57 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 65 vs 65
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when RSP moved ahead of SCHA.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only RSP
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
RSP 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 up over the latest session (price +0.36%, AIQ +5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1SCHA closes the Momentum gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to RSP's edge.
- 2SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RSP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
RSP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.6% | 1.4% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.4% | 16.8% |
Technicals
RSP has the stronger structure| Metric | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.2 | 49.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 32.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.5% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.3% | 15.4% |
Risk
RSP is the more resilient| Metric | RSP | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -8.3% | -11.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.1% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 18.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between RSP and SCHA?
SCHA holds 1,705 positions to RSP's 509, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do RSP and SCHA overlap?
RSP and SCHA share 0.57% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings. 502 holdings are unique to RSP, and 1,696 holdings are unique to SCHA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, RSP or SCHA?
SCHA holds more positions: 1,705 versus 509 for RSP.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHA has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.2% for RSP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RSP, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.47% against 1.13% for SCHA.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHA has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.7% annualized against 11.4% for RSP.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
RSP fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.4% against -30.8% for SCHA.
Compare RSP and SCHA 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.