SCHG vs XLK Stock Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
SCHG and XLK are effectively level
SCHG and XLK 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
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate SCHG and XLK as of Sep 2, 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 State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Risk Resilience15%79 vs 60SCHG +19
- Value30%30 vs 36XLK +6
- Quality30%71 vs 74Even
- Momentum25%57 vs 54Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
SCHG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHG and XLK both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLKXLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SCHGSCHG on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLK | Value 30 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 7.6% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHG | Risk Resilience 79 vs 60 |
| 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)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1SCHG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHG +1
- 58 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHG +3
- 61 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHG +1
- 52 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 11 when SCHG moved ahead of XLK.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.60%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.27%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.17%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, AIQ -1 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.
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.8 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.6% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.2% | 21% |
Risk
SCHG is the more resilient| Metric | SCHG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.23 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.96 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better value, SCHG or XLK?
XLK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, SCHG or XLK?
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, SCHG or XLK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, SCHG or XLK?
SCHG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SCHG on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 SCHG more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about SCHG and XLK?
SCHG: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 SCHG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SCHG and XLK 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.