SCHG vs IWF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHG and IWF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHG is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF, while IWF is iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF. IWF is broader by holdings count, with 369 positions versus 196 for SCHG. IWF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHG ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 50.
| Metric | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 196 | 369 |
| Top-10 concentration | 52.2% | 57.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.39% | 0.35% |
| Average volume | 7,606,553 | 4,495,717 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +5.4% |
| YTD return | +8.9% | +3.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.2% | +11.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 17.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -16.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -34.6% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | 0.21 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 43/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
SCHG leads
SCHG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SCHG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHG over IWF, 53 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. SCHG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SCHG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHG vs IWF: 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 | SCHG | IWF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.18% | SCHG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 196 | 369 | IWF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 52.2% | 57.1% | SCHG |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.39% | 0.35% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34.6% | -32.7% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.7% | 17.9% | SCHG |
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 SCHG and IWF 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.
- Value33 vs 27SCHG +6
- Momentum43 vs 38SCHG +5
- Quality71 vs 70Even
- Risk Resilience75 vs 74Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHG. SCHG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SCHG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHG and IWF 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 | SCHG | IWF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 196 | 369 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,606,553 | 4,495,717 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 17.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -16.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.13 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.31 | 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
SCHG and IWF share 65.37% of their weighted exposure across 123 common holdings.
70 holdings are unique to SCHG, and 243 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
IWF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 57.13% of the fund, against 52.16% for SCHG (369 holdings vs 196). 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 | SCHG | IWF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 10.8% | 15.69% | 10.8% |
| AAPLAPPLE | 9.79% | 7.43% | 7.43% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 7.47% | 5.49% | 5.49% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 3.98% | 5.79% | 3.98% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 3.49% | 5.1% | 3.49% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 3.19% | 4.69% | 3.19% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 2.89% | 3.53% | 2.89% |
| LLYELI LILLY | 2.91% | 2.7% | 2.7% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SCHG adds that IWF doesn’t
| Holding | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAMAZON COM INC | 5.03% | 0.61% |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.58% | 0.53% |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 1.39% | Not held |
| TMOTHERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC | 0.88% | Not held |
| LINLINDE PLC | 0.84% | Not held |
| CRMSALESFORCE | 0.78% | Not held |
What IWF adds that SCHG doesn’t
| Holding | IWF | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.48% | Not held |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 1.19% | Not held |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 1.12% | Not held |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 1.11% | Not held |
| ORCLORACLE | 0.83% | Not held |
| SNDKSANDISK | 0.77% | 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.
SCHG vs IWF: five-year payout growth
SCHG grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.82% a year against IWF's 1.23%. SCHG: The 2020 payout was 12.0% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.82% | 1.23% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.084 | $0.399 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.117 | $0.424 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #78 of 138 | #124 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 SCHG. 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 | 53 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHG | Value 33 vs 27 |
| Technicals | SCHG | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 6.6% vs 2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 74 |
| 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 SCHG and IWF 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 3 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 SCHG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHG +3
- 53 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHG +3
- 57 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHG +3
- 61 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 61 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when SCHG moved ahead of IWF.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SCHG 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.92%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IWF closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHG's edge.
- 2IWF's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SCHG'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
SCHG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.3% | 1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.9% | 3.9% |
| Year to date | 8.9% | 3.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 5.4% |
Technicals
SCHG has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.8 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18.5 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.6% | 2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.1% | 15.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | 0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 17.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do SCHG and IWF overlap?
SCHG and IWF share 65.37% of their weighted exposure across 123 common holdings. 70 holdings are unique to SCHG, and 243 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHG or IWF?
IWF holds more positions: 369 versus 196 for SCHG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.18% for IWF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.39% for SCHG and 0.35% for IWF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWF has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.9% annualized against 16.7% for SCHG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -34.6% for SCHG and -32.7% for IWF.
Compare SCHG and IWF 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.