SPY vs SCHG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPY and SCHG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF, while SCHG is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF. SPY is broader by holdings count, with 505 positions versus 196 for SCHG. SCHG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 53.
What is the main difference between SPY and SCHG?
SCHG puts 54% of its assets in Technology, while SPY spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 505 | 196 |
| Top-10 concentration | 38.2% | 52.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.99% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 46,698,705 | 7,606,553 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.4% | +11.9% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +8.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.7% | +13.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 16.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -34.6% |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 0.77 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 66/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 63/100 | 43/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 88/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF vs Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over SCHG, 66 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SPY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions. SPY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPY vs SCHG: 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 | SPY | SCHG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.09% | 0.04% | SCHG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 505 | 196 | SPY |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 38.2% | 52.2% | SPY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.99% | 0.39% | SPY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -34.6% | SPY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.8% | 16.7% | SPY |
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 SPY and SCHG 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.
- Momentum63 vs 43SPY +20
- Quality84 vs 71SPY +13
- Risk Resilience88 vs 75SPY +13
- Value41 vs 33SPY +8
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
SPY's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPY and SCHG 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 | SPY | SCHG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 505 | 196 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 46,698,705 | 7,606,553 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 16.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.49 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.24 | 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
SPY and SCHG share 54.71% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings.
382 holdings are unique to SPY, and 71 holdings are unique to SCHG. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SCHG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 52.16% of the fund, against 38.17% for SPY (196 holdings vs 505). 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 | SPY | SCHG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 8.08% | 10.8% | 8.08% |
| AAPLAPPLE | 7.33% | 9.79% | 7.33% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.59% | 7.47% | 5.59% |
| AMZNAMAZON COM INC | 3.77% | 5.03% | 3.77% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.98% | 3.98% | 2.98% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.61% | 3.49% | 2.61% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.39% | 3.19% | 2.39% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 2.16% | 2.89% | 2.16% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPY adds that SCHG doesn’t
| Holding | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 1.69% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 1.45% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 1.42% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.05% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON + JOHNSON | 0.98% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 0.76% | Not held |
What SCHG adds that SPY doesn’t
| Holding | SCHG | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| LLYELI LILLY | 2.91% | 1.36% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 2.6% | 1.25% |
| VVISA CLASS A | 2.4% | 0.93% |
| MAMASTERCARD CLASS A | 1.8% | 0.7% |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.58% | 0.61% |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A | 1.5% | 0.58% |
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.
SPY vs SCHG: five-year payout growth
SCHG grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.82% a year against SPY's 5.05%. SPY never reduced its annual distribution in the window; SCHG did in 1 year. SCHG: The 2020 payout was 12.0% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.05% | 6.82% |
| 2020 annual payout | $5.691 | $0.084 |
| 2025 annual payout | $7.281 | $0.117 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #95 of 138 | #78 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 SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPY | 66 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPY | Value 41 vs 33 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs 6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 88 vs 75 |
| 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 SPY and SCHG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SPY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPY +13
- 66 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- SPY +9
- 66 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +5
- 66 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- SPY +9
- 70 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when SPY moved ahead of SCHG.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SPY 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 +0.53%, AIQ +4 points).
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).
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.
- 1SCHG closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2SCHG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
SPY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | 9.9% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 8.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.4% | 11.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.2 | 44.8 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 18.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | 6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9% | 14.1% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | SPY | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.39 | 0.77 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 16.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPY and SCHG?
SCHG puts 54% of its assets in Technology, while SPY spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do SPY and SCHG overlap?
SPY and SCHG share 54.71% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings. 382 holdings are unique to SPY, and 71 holdings are unique to SCHG. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPY or SCHG?
SPY holds more positions: 505 versus 196 for SCHG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.09% for SPY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.99% against 0.39% for SCHG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHG has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.7% annualized against 12.8% for SPY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -34.6% for SCHG.
Compare SPY and SCHG 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.