SCHG vs VUG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHG and VUG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHG is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF, while VUG is Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF. SCHG is broader by holdings count, with 196 positions versus 150 for VUG. VUG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between SCHG and VUG?
SCHG and VUG both concentrate in Technology, at 54% and 58% of assets, and 75% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 196 | 150 |
| Top-10 concentration | 52.2% | 63.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.39% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 7,606,553 | 6,445,771 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +11.8% |
| YTD return | +8.9% | +9.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.2% | +12.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 17.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -16.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -34.6% | -35.6% |
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | 0.74 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 43/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
SCHG and VUG are effectively level
SCHG and VUG are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate SCHG and VUG as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHG vs VUG: 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 | VUG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 196 | 150 | SCHG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 52.2% | 63.6% | SCHG |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.39% | 0.39% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34.6% | -35.6% | 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 VUG 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.
- Quality71 vs 75VUG +4
- Risk Resilience75 vs 72Even
- Momentum43 vs 41Even
- Value33 vs 32Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHG and VUG 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 | VUG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 196 | 150 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,606,553 | 6,445,771 | 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% | -16.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.34 | 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 VUG share 74.57% of their weighted exposure across 91 common holdings.
102 holdings are unique to SCHG, and 56 holdings are unique to VUG. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
VUG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.61% of the fund, against 52.16% for SCHG (150 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 | VUG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 10.8% | 12.81% | 10.8% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.79% | 12.6% | 9.79% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.47% | 9.59% | 7.47% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.03% | 5.15% | 5.03% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.98% | 5.8% | 3.98% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.49% | 4.46% | 3.49% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.19% | 4.63% | 3.19% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.89% | 3.41% | 2.89% |
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 VUG doesn’t
| Holding | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 1.39% | Not held |
| GEGE AEROSPACE | 1.33% | 0.54% |
| TMOTHERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC | 0.88% | Not held |
| LINLINDE PLC | 0.84% | Not held |
| CRMSALESFORCE | 0.78% | Not held |
| DISWALT DISNEY | 0.72% | Not held |
What VUG adds that SCHG doesn’t
| Holding | VUG | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 1.13% | Not held |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 1.03% | Not held |
| ORCLOracle Corp | 0.63% | Not held |
| APHAmphenol Corp | 0.57% | Not held |
| MCDMcDonald's Corp | 0.55% | Not held |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings PLC | 0.55% | 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 VUG: five-year payout growth
SCHG grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.82% a year against VUG's 3.61%. SCHG: The 2020 payout was 12.0% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.82% | 3.61% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.084 | $0.281 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.117 | $0.335 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #78 of 138 | #112 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 53 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 6.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VUG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 53 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VUG +1
- 61 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- VUG +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when VUG 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.
SCHG and VUG carry the same 6 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Compression, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +0.85%, AIQ 0 points).
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.3% | 3.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.9% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 8.9% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 11.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.8 | 42.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.5 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.1% | 14.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -16.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -4.3% |
| 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.
What is the difference between SCHG and VUG?
SCHG and VUG both concentrate in Technology, at 54% and 58% of assets, and 75% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SCHG and VUG overlap?
SCHG and VUG share 74.57% of their weighted exposure across 91 common holdings. 102 holdings are unique to SCHG, and 56 holdings are unique to VUG. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHG or VUG?
SCHG holds more positions: 196 versus 150 for VUG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.04% for SCHG and 0.03% for VUG.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.39% for SCHG and 0.39% for VUG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VUG 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 -35.6% for VUG.
Compare SCHG and VUG 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.