SCHA vs SPSM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHA and SPSM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHA is Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF, while SPSM is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF. SCHA is broader by holdings count, with 1,705 positions versus 610 for SPSM. SCHA is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPSM ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 59.
What is the main difference between SCHA and SPSM?
SCHA and SPSM have little in common: 35% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SCHA | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 1,705 | 610 |
| Top-10 concentration | 10.7% | 5.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.13% | 1.54% |
| Average volume | 2,890,861 | 1,794,484 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.8% | +16.5% |
| YTD return | +14.4% | +14.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.8% | +5.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 15.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.5% | -10% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -30.8% | -27.9% |
| Beta | 1.20 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 1.42 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 54/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 76/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF
SPSM leads
SPSM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SPSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPSM over SCHA, 61 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. SPSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SPSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHA vs SPSM: 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 | SPSM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,705 | 610 | SCHA |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 10.7% | 5.4% | SPSM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.13% | 1.54% | SPSM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -30.8% | -27.9% | SPSM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.7% | 15.8% | SPSM |
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 SPSM 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.
- Momentum48 vs 54SPSM +6
- Risk Resilience76 vs 82SPSM +6
- Quality64 vs 61Even
- Value55 vs 57Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SPSM. SPSM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +16
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SPSM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHA and SPSM both carry a full feed there.
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 | SPSM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,705 | 610 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,890,861 | 1,794,484 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 15.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.5% | -10% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.81 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.20 | 0.94 | 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 SPSM share 35.04% of their weighted exposure across 583 common holdings.
1,116 holdings are unique to SCHA, and 25 holdings are unique to SPSM. 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 5.43% for SPSM (1,705 holdings vs 610). 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 | SPSM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.23% | 0.63% | 0.23% |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.22% | 0.57% | 0.22% |
| GKOSGLAUKOS CORP | 0.21% | 0.57% | 0.21% |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 0.21% | 0.55% | 0.21% |
| EATBRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 0.2% | 0.53% | 0.2% |
| FORMFORMFACTOR INC | 0.19% | 0.5% | 0.19% |
| PTGXPROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.19% | 0.5% | 0.19% |
| SMSM ENERGY CO | 0.19% | 0.5% | 0.19% |
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 SPSM doesn’t
| Holding | SCHA | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| SNDKSANDISK | 5.37% | Not held |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 1.56% | Not held |
| RVMDREVOLUTION MEDICINES | 0.87% | Not held |
| ATIATI | 0.58% | Not held |
| GHGUARDANT HEALTH | 0.45% | Not held |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 0.45% | Not held |
What SPSM adds that SCHA doesn’t
| Holding | SPSM | SCHA |
|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.63% | 0.23% |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.57% | 0.22% |
| GKOSGLAUKOS CORP | 0.57% | 0.21% |
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 0.56% | Not held |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 0.55% | 0.21% |
| EATBRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 0.53% | 0.2% |
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 SPSM: five-year payout growth
SPSM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.59% a year against SCHA's 8.89%. SCHA: The 2020 payout was 11.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SPSM: The 2020 payout was 19.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SPSM: The payout jumped 50.1% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SCHA | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 8.89% | 12.59% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.234 | $0.418 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.358 | $0.757 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #65 of 138 | #45 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPSM. 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 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 57 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs 0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SPSM | Risk Resilience 76 vs 82 |
| 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 SPSM 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SPSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPSM +2
- 59 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- SPSM +1
- 58 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SPSM +1
- 55 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHA +1
- 65 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when SCHA moved ahead of SPSM.
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SPSM
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
SCHA is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.06%, AIQ +4 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 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPSM's edge.
- 2SCHA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.5% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.4% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 14.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.8% | 16.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SCHA | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 56.7 |
| ADX (14) | 32.7 | 40.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | 0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 13.1% |
Risk
SPSM is the more resilient| Metric | SCHA | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -11.5% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 15.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SCHA and SPSM?
SCHA and SPSM have little in common: 35% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SCHA and SPSM overlap?
SCHA and SPSM share 35.04% of their weighted exposure across 583 common holdings. 1,116 holdings are unique to SCHA, and 25 holdings are unique to SPSM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHA or SPSM?
SCHA holds more positions: 1,705 versus 610 for SPSM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.03% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPSM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% 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 15.8% for SPSM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPSM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.9% against -30.8% for SCHA.
Compare SCHA and SPSM 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.