VGT vs SCHG ETF Comparison
Compare VGT and SCHG across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between VGT and SCHG?
VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF, while SCHG is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF. VGT is tied to Sector Equity; SCHG is tied to Equity. VGT is broader by holdings count, with 319 positions versus 194 for SCHG. VGT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | VGT | SCHG | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.04% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $160.2B | $62.5B | Fund |
| Holdings | 319 | 194 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 101.9% | 78.9% | Fund |
| Average volume | 756,706 | 13,892,019 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Sector Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | - | +18.4% | Performance |
| YTD return | -15.4% | +9.9% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 109.3% | 16.7% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.6% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.23 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 0.81 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.75 | 1.20 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 35/100 | 58/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 8/100 | 62/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 22/100 | 78/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Information Technology ETF vs Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG leads
SCHG leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHG over VGT, 58 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. SCHG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. SCHG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals.
Compare Vanguard Information Technology ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare VGT and SCHG 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.
- Risk Resilience15%22 vs 78SCHG +56
- Momentum25%8 vs 62SCHG +54
- Value30%28 vs 30Even
- Quality30%71 vs 71Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHG. SCHG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SCHG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VGT and SCHG 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
SCHGSCHG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SCHGSCHG on the Momentum factor, by 54 points.
Lower downside
SCHGSCHG on Risk Resilience, by 56 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | VGT | SCHG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $160.2B | $62.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 310 | 196 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 756,706 | 13,892,019 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 109.3% | 16.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 0.81 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.23 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
VGT and SCHG share 70.53% of their weighted exposure across 48 common holdings.
VGT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 101.9% of the fund, against 78.87% for SCHG (319 holdings vs 194). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
271 holdings are unique to VGT and 146 to SCHG. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VGT | SCHG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE | 32.51% | 19.15% | 19.15% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 21.93% | 15.05% | 15.05% |
| NVDANVIDIA | 17.16% | 10.99% | 10.99% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 6.35% | 4.57% | 4.57% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.21% | 3.36% | 3.36% |
| PANWPALO ALTO NETWORKS | 2.32% | 2.07% | 2.07% |
| KLACKLA | 2.04% | 1.73% | 1.73% |
| ANETARISTA NETWORKS | 1.67% | 1.52% | 1.52% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, VGT or SCHG?
VGT currently has more reported holdings, with 319 positions versus 194.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHG has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VGT has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHG has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SCHG currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 58 to 35.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHG | 35 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 28 vs 30 |
| Technicals | SCHG | Price vs 50-day -83.2% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day n/a vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | SCHG | Risk Resilience 22 vs 78 |
| 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 VGT and SCHG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (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 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SCHG 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 -0.86%, 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.
- 1VGT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHG's edge.
- 2VGT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SCHG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
SCHG leads 5 of 5 windows| Metric | VGT | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -19.1% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -31% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -64.9% | 3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -83.1% | 15.7% |
| Year to date | -15.4% | 9.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 18.4% |
Technicals
SCHG has the stronger structure| Metric | VGT | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21.9 | 50.7 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -83.2% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 111.7% | 12.4% |
Risk
SCHG is the more resilient| Metric | VGT | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.18 | 1.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.16 | 0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.75 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -85.1% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -84.9% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 109.3% | 16.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VGT or SCHG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SCHG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against VGT's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is VGT or SCHG the better buy right now?
SCHG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SCHG over VGT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SCHG leads Risk Resilience by 56 points; SCHG leads Momentum by 54 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, VGT or SCHG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, VGT or SCHG?
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, VGT or SCHG?
SCHG on the Momentum factor, by 54 points. 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, VGT or SCHG?
SCHG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SCHG on Risk Resilience, by 56 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 VGT more profitable than SCHG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the VGT vs SCHG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VGT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHG's edge; VGT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SCHG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about VGT and SCHG?
VGT: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SCHG: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 VGT is BB Lower Band Breach (bullish, short horizon). On SCHG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VGT and SCHG 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.