SCHA vs SCHB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHA and SCHB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHA is Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF, while SCHB is Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF. SCHB is broader by holdings count, with 2,380 positions versus 1,705 for SCHA. SCHB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHB ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 59.
What is the main difference between SCHA and SCHB?
SCHA and SCHB have little in common: 6% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 1,705 | 2,380 |
| Top-10 concentration | 10.7% | 34.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.13% | 1.04% |
| Average volume | 2,890,861 | 8,291,817 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.8% | +15.7% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | +12.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.8% | +11.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.5% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -30.8% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 1.20 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 76/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF vs Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
SCHB leads
SCHB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SCHB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHB over SCHA, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SCHA holds the stronger value profile. SCHB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SCHB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF and Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHA vs SCHB: 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 | SCHA | SCHB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,705 | 2,380 | SCHB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 10.7% | 34.1% | SCHA |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.13% | 1.04% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -30.8% | -25.4% | SCHB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.7% | 13% | SCHB |
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 SCHA and SCHB 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.
- Value55 vs 42SCHA +13
- Risk Resilience76 vs 86SCHB +10
- Quality64 vs 70SCHB +6
- Momentum48 vs 52SCHB +4
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHB. SCHB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience 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 +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SCHB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHA and SCHB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHB (Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 9.9%.
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 | SCHA | SCHB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,705 | 2,380 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,890,861 | 8,291,817 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.5% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.85 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.20 | 1.02 | 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
SCHA and SCHB share 6.37% of their weighted exposure across 1,626 common holdings.
73 holdings are unique to SCHA, and 746 holdings are unique to SCHB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 34.13% of the fund, against 10.68% for SCHA (2,380 holdings vs 1,705). 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 | SCHA | SCHB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNDKSANDISK | 5.37% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 1.56% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| RVMDREVOLUTION MEDICINES | 0.87% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| ATIATI | 0.58% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| GHGUARDANT HEALTH | 0.45% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 0.45% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| GVMXXSSC GOVERNMENT MM GVMXX | 0.03% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| RKTROCKET COMPANIES INC CLASS A | 0.28% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SCHA adds that SCHB doesn’t
| Holding | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| SNDKSANDISK | 5.37% | 0.34% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 1.56% | 0.1% |
| RVMDREVOLUTION MEDICINES | 0.87% | 0.06% |
| ATIATI | 0.58% | 0.04% |
| GHGUARDANT HEALTH | 0.45% | 0.03% |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 0.45% | 0.03% |
What SCHB adds that SCHA doesn’t
| Holding | SCHB | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.23% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.56% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON COM INC | 3.37% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.67% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.34% | 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.
SCHA vs SCHB: five-year payout growth
SCHA grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 8.89% a year against SCHB's 3.54%. SCHA: The 2020 payout was 11.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 8.89% | 3.54% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.234 | $0.245 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.358 | $0.292 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #65 of 138 | #113 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHB. 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 | 59 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHA | Value 55 vs 42 |
| Technicals | SCHB | Price vs 50-day -3% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHB | Risk Resilience 76 vs 86 |
| 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 SCHA and SCHB 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 2 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)
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 SCHB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHB +1
- 59 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHB +3
- 55 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHA +1
- 65 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when SCHB 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHB
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SCHB 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 +0.31%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.61%, 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.
- 1SCHA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHB's edge.
- 2SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
Split across windows| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.5% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.4% | 2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.8% | 15.7% |
Technicals
SCHB has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 54.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.7 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 9.9% |
Risk
SCHB is the more resilient| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -11.5% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SCHA and SCHB?
SCHA and SCHB have little in common: 6% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SCHA and SCHB overlap?
SCHA and SCHB share 6.37% of their weighted exposure across 1,626 common holdings. 73 holdings are unique to SCHA, and 746 holdings are unique to SCHB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHA or SCHB?
SCHB holds more positions: 2,380 versus 1,705 for SCHA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.03% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.13% for SCHA and 1.04% for SCHB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHA has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.7% annualized against 13% for SCHB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -30.8% for SCHA.
Compare SCHA and SCHB 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.