SCHO vs SGOV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHO and SGOV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHO is Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF, while SGOV is iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF. SCHO is broader by holdings count, with 97 positions versus 24 for SGOV. SCHO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 60.
What is the main difference between SCHO and SGOV?
SCHO holds 97 positions to SGOV's 24.
| Metric | SCHO | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 97 | 24 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.84% | 3.64% |
| Average volume | 4,559,758 | 20,897,619 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -2.3% | +0.1% |
| YTD return | -2% | +0.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +2% | +3.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 1.7% | 1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -2.6% | -0.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -5.4% | 0% |
| Beta | 0.03 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.57 | -3.85 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.96 | -3.24 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 55/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF vs iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
SCHO leads
SCHO leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from SGOV.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF
iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHO over SGOV, 64 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while SGOV holds the stronger quality profile. SCHO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SCHO lead: Reversed — SGOV led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHO now leads by 4.
Compare Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF and iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHO vs SGOV: 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 | SCHO | SGOV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.09% | SCHO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 97 | 24 | SCHO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.84% | 3.64% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -5.4% | 0% | SGOV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 1.7% | 1% | Similar |
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 SCHO and SGOV 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.
- Value73 vs 45SCHO +28
- Quality66 vs 76SGOV +10
- Momentum48 vs 55SGOV +7
- Risk Resilience72 vs 66SCHO +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHO. SCHO’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; SGOV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SCHO's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHO and SGOV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHO (Schwab Short-Term U.S. Treasury ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
SGOV (iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF): the counter-case, on quality, momentum.
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 | SCHO | SGOV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 97 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,559,758 | 20,897,619 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 1.7% | 1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -2.6% | -0.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.57 | -3.85 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.03 | -0.01 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHO | 64 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHO | Value 73 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day -1.1% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHO | Risk Resilience 72 vs 66 |
| 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 SCHO and SGOV 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 SCHO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SCHO lead: Reversed — SGOV led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHO now leads by 4.
- Today
- SCHO +4
- 64 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHO +5
- 64 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SGOV +8
- 58 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- SCHO +8
- 67 vs 59
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 when SCHO moved ahead of SGOV.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.82%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SGOV
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.02%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week High Proximity, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SCHO 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 -0.04%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.01%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1SGOV closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHO's edge.
- 2SGOV's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3SCHO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
SGOV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHO | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.7% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.5% | 0% |
| Year to date | -2% | 0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.3% | 0.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SCHO | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.9 | 42.6 |
| ADX (14) | 29.6 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.1% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.4% | 1% |
Risk
SCHO is the more resilient| Metric | SCHO | SGOV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.03 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -3.57 | -3.85 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.96 | -3.24 |
| Max drawdown | -2.6% | -0.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 1.7% | 1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.3% | 0% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SCHO and SGOV?
SCHO holds 97 positions to SGOV's 24.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHO or SGOV?
SCHO holds more positions: 97 versus 24 for SGOV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.09% for SGOV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 3.84% for SCHO and 3.64% for SGOV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 1.7% annualized for SCHO and 1% for SGOV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SGOV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: 0% against -5.4% for SCHO.
Compare SCHO and SGOV 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.