SCHV vs SPLV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHV and SPLV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHV is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF, while SPLV is Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF. SCHV is broader by holdings count, with 559 positions versus 108 for SPLV. SCHV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPLV ahead on AIQ Score, 70 versus 58.
What is the main difference between SCHV and SPLV?
SCHV holds 559 positions to SPLV's 108, and 23% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SCHV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 559 | 108 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.9% | 12.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.85% | 2.15% |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 2,130,264 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.6% | +8.6% |
| YTD return | +14.6% | +7.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.5% | +6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 11.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -9.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.8% | -17.3% |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 0.85 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 70/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 76/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 60/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF
SPLV leads
SPLV leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 2 of 3 evidence groups support SPLV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPLV over SCHV, 70 versus 58 as of Nov 7, 2026. SPLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while SCHV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SPLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SPLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHV vs SPLV: 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 | SPLV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.25% | SCHV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 559 | 108 | SCHV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.9% | 12.6% | SPLV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.85% | 2.15% | SPLV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.8% | -17.3% | SPLV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.8% | 11.1% | 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 SCHV and SPLV 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.
- Momentum48 vs 76SPLV +28
- Risk Resilience77 vs 60SCHV +17
- Quality64 vs 69SPLV +5
2 of 3 evidence groups favor SPLV. SPLV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; SCHV keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
SPLV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHV and SPLV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPLV (Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SCHV (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | SPLV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.25% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 559 | 108 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 2,130,264 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 11.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -9.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.05 | 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 SPLV share 22.57% of their weighted exposure across 94 common holdings.
461 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 7 holdings are unique to SPLV. 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 12.58% for SPLV (559 holdings vs 108). 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 | SPLV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.96% | 1.38% | 1.38% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 2.04% | 1.14% | 1.14% |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 1.08% | 1.11% | 1.08% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 1.06% | 1.05% | 1.05% |
| CVXCHEVRON | 1.27% | 0.97% | 0.97% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA | 1.3% | 0.91% | 0.91% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | 0.89% | 0.89% |
| PEPPepsiCo Inc | 0.59% | 0.94% | 0.59% |
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 SPLV doesn’t
| Holding | SCHV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.51% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | 0.89% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.96% | 1.38% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.18% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION CORP | 1.58% | Not held |
| WMTWALMART INC | 1.48% | Not held |
What SPLV adds that SCHV doesn’t
| Holding | SPLV | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| REGRegency Centers Corp | 1.28% | 0.04% |
| FEFirstEnergy Corp | 1.27% | 0.08% |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 1.26% | 0.3% |
| WECWEC Energy Group Inc | 1.26% | 0.11% |
| EVRGEvergy Inc | 1.25% | 0.06% |
| ATOAtmos Energy Corp | 1.24% | 0.09% |
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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPLV | 58 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SPLV | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs 3.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHV | Risk Resilience 77 vs 60 |
| 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 SPLV 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 12 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 SPLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SPLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPLV +12
- 58 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- SPLV +6
- 65 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- SPLV +5
- 60 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when SCHV moved ahead of SPLV.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.96%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPLV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.90%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
SPLV 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.93%, 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.
- 1SCHV closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPLV's edge.
- 2SCHV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
SPLV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | 14.6% | 7.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.6% | 8.6% |
Technicals
SPLV has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 66.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.7 | 41 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | 3.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.5% | 15.8% |
Risk
SCHV is the more resilient| Metric | SCHV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -7.3% | -9.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 11.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SCHV and SPLV?
SCHV holds 559 positions to SPLV's 108, and 23% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SCHV and SPLV overlap?
SCHV and SPLV share 22.57% of their weighted exposure across 94 common holdings. 461 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 7 holdings are unique to SPLV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHV or SPLV?
SCHV holds more positions: 559 versus 108 for SPLV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHV has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.25% for SPLV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPLV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.15% against 1.85% for SCHV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 11.8% annualized for SCHV and 11.1% for SPLV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPLV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.3% against -19.8% for SCHV.
Compare SCHV and SPLV 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.