SCHA vs SCHB ETF Comparison
Compare SCHA and SCHB across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between SCHA and SCHB?
SCHA is Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF, while SCHB is Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF. SCHA is tied to Equity; SCHB is tied to Equity. SCHB is broader by holdings count, with 2,376 positions versus 1,703 for SCHA. SCHB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | SCHA | SCHB | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $22.6B | $44.5B | Fund |
| Holdings | 1,703 | 2,376 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 11.5% | 52.2% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,939,136 | 5,827,167 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 13.1% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -9.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.02 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 1.16 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.89 | 1.68 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 60/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 57/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 88/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF vs Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
SCHB leads
SCHB leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHB, its lead is widening, 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 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. SCHB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while SCHA holds the stronger value profile. SCHB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SCHB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 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.
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.
- Momentum25%32 vs 57SCHB +25
- Value30%51 vs 37SCHA +14
- Risk Resilience15%78 vs 88SCHB +10
- Quality30%64 vs 70SCHB +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHB. SCHB’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; SCHA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
SCHB's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 momentum and risk resilience.
SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 14.8% against 8.8%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
SCHBSCHB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
SCHASCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
SCHBSCHB on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
SCHBSCHB on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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. |
| Assets under management | $22.6B | $44.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 1,707 | 2,382 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,939,136 | 5,827,167 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 13.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 1.16 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.02 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
SCHA and SCHB share 9.31% of their weighted exposure across 1630 common holdings.
SCHB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 52.16% of the fund, against 11.52% for SCHA (2376 holdings vs 1703). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
73 holdings are unique to SCHA and 746 to SCHB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | SCHA | SCHB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNDKSANDISK | 4.86% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 1.43% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| GVMXXSSC GOVERNMENT MM GVMXX | 0.07% | 0.08% | 0.07% |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 0.94% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| RVMDREVOLUTION MEDICINES | 0.88% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| HLHECLA MINING | 0.59% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| ATIATI | 0.58% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| MLIMUELLER INDUSTRIES INC | 0.58% | 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.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHA or SCHB?
SCHB currently has more reported holdings, with 2,376 positions versus 1,703.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The current fund profile does not show a lower-cost winner.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHA has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHB has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SCHB currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 60 to 54.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | SCHB | 54 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHA | Value 51 vs 37 |
| Technicals | SCHB | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 1.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHB | Risk Resilience 78 vs 88 |
| 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 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 SCHB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3SCHB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHB +6
- 54 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHB +3
- 56 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHB +2
- 62 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHA +2
- 63 vs 61
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.04%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.45%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.99%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.3%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 25 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 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
SCHB has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 44.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 13.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.8% | 8.8% |
Risk
SCHB is the more resilient| Metric | SCHA | SCHB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.22 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.11 | 1.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.89 | 1.68 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -0.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 13.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SCHA or SCHB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SCHB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 60 against SCHA's 54. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. SCHA is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is SCHA or SCHB the better buy right now?
SCHB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SCHB over SCHA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SCHB leads Momentum by 25 points; SCHA leads Value by 14 points; SCHB leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, SCHA or SCHB?
SCHA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SCHA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, SCHA or SCHB?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, SCHA or SCHB?
SCHB on the Momentum factor, by 25 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, SCHA or SCHB?
SCHB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SCHB on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SCHA more profitable than SCHB?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SCHB's lead over SCHA getting stronger or weaker?
SCHB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when SCHB moved ahead of SCHA.
What would change the SCHA vs SCHB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SCHA closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHB's edge; SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SCHB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about SCHA and SCHB?
SCHA: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SCHB: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on SCHA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SCHB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SCHA and SCHB with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.