SCHV vs SLYV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHV and SLYV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHV is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF, while SLYV is State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF. SCHV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHV ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 57.
What is the main difference between SCHV and SLYV?
SCHV and SLYV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 559 | 463 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.9% | 9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.85% | 1.97% |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 200,936 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.6% | +16.6% |
| YTD return | +14.6% | +14.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.5% | +5.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 16% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -9.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.8% | -28.7% |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 1.50 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
SCHV leads
SCHV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SCHV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHV over SLYV, 58 versus 57 as of Nov 7, 2026. SCHV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while SLYV holds the stronger value profile. SCHV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SCHV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHV vs SLYV: 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 | SCHV | SLYV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | SCHV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 559 | 463 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.9% | 9% | SLYV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.85% | 1.97% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.8% | -28.7% | SCHV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.8% | 16% | SCHV |
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 SCHV and SLYV 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.
- Quality64 vs 50SCHV +14
- Value52 vs 59SLYV +7
- Momentum48 vs 53SLYV +5
- Risk Resilience77 vs 75Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHV. SCHV’s edge is concentrated in quality; SLYV keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SCHV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHV and SLYV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHV (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
SLYV (State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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 | SCHV | SLYV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 559 | 463 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 200,936 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 16% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -9.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.79 | 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
SCHV and SLYV share 0.26% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings.
542 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 448 holdings are unique to SLYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 20.86% of the fund, against 8.99% for SLYV (559 holdings vs 463). 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 | SCHV | SLYV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| QRVOQORVO INC | 0.03% | 0.37% | 0.03% |
| EMNEASTMAN CHEMICAL CO | 0.03% | 0.86% | 0.03% |
| KMXCARMAX INC | 0.03% | 0.95% | 0.03% |
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 0.03% | 1.08% | 0.03% |
| MHKMOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC | 0.02% | 0.7% | 0.02% |
| MKTXMARKETAXESS HOLDINGS INC | 0.02% | 0.29% | 0.02% |
| CAGCONAGRA BRANDS INC | 0.02% | 0.78% | 0.02% |
| LWLAMB WESTON HOLDINGS INC | 0.02% | 0.72% | 0.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SCHV adds that SLYV doesn’t
| Holding | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.51% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.96% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.18% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 2.04% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION CORP | 1.58% | Not held |
What SLYV adds that SCHV doesn’t
| Holding | SLYV | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 1.08% | 0.03% |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 1.07% | Not held |
| PAYCPAYCOM SOFTWARE INC | 0.99% | Not held |
| SMSM ENERGY CO | 0.96% | Not held |
| KMXCARMAX INC | 0.95% | 0.03% |
| EMNEASTMAN CHEMICAL CO | 0.86% | 0.03% |
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.
SCHV vs SLYV: five-year payout growth
SLYV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 14.63% a year against SCHV's -0.06%. SLYV: The 2020 payout was 15.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SLYV: The payout jumped 77.4% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -0.06% | 14.63% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.601 | $0.929 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.600 | $1.839 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #129 of 138 | #39 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHV. 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 | 58 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SLYV | Value 52 vs 59 |
| Technicals | SCHV | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 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 SCHV and SLYV 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SCHV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SCHV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHV +1
- 58 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHV +1
- 65 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHV +3
- 60 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when SCHV moved ahead of SLYV.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.10%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SLYV
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
SCHV 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 -0.32%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.43%, 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.
- 1SLYV closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHV's edge.
- 2SLYV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHV'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
SCHV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | -5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 0.9% |
| Year to date | 14.6% | 14.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.6% | 16.6% |
Technicals
SCHV has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 21.7 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.5% | 19.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SCHV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -7.3% | -9.4% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -7.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SCHV and SLYV?
SCHV and SLYV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SCHV and SLYV overlap?
SCHV and SLYV share 0.26% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings. 542 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 448 holdings are unique to SLYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHV or SLYV?
They hold a similar number of positions: 559 for SCHV and 463 for SLYV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHV has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.15% for SLYV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.85% for SCHV and 1.97% for SLYV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLYV has been more volatile over the past year, at 16% annualized against 11.8% for SCHV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -19.8% against -28.7% for SLYV.
Compare SCHV and SLYV 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.