ACWV vs SCHD
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, ACWV or SCHD?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWV is less concentrated, with 11.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACWV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $3.4B | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.86% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 437 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +4.86% | +21.99%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.34% | +25.92%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.90% | +15.66%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.47% | +9.48%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.0%Best | 13.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -28.8%Best | -33.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,051 | $15,728Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.9%Best | 41.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 18, 2011 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 20, 2011 to Sep 23, 2026 (14.9 years).
ACWV vs SCHD growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 14.9 years both funds cover.
ACWV vs SCHD Performance
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year ACWV returned +5.34% while SCHD returned +25.92%. Year to date, ACWV is up 4.86% versus a gain of 21.99% for SCHD.
Over three years, ACWV compounded at +10.90% per year against +15.66% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +5.47% and +9.48% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SCHD has the edge at +11.15% annualized vs +8.31%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.7% compared with 10.0% for ACWV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -28.8% for ACWV and -33.4% for SCHD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACWV charges 0.20% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $6 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACWV currently yields 1.86% against 3.00% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
6.5% of ACWV's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 57.6% of SCHD's money is in holdings ACWV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
17 positions in common, counted across the 376 positions we hold weights for in ACWV and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 437 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 82 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for ACWV (42.3% of the fund), and 138 for ACWV that do not appear in SCHD (52.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ACWV | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.59% | 4.77% | 4.18% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 0.46% | 4.69% | 4.23% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.36% | 4.70% | 4.34% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.81% | 4.17% | 3.36% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.79% | 3.97% | 3.18% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.77% | 3.83% | 3.06% |
| PEPPepsico Inc. | 0.84% | 3.64% | 2.80% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.40% | 4.02% | 3.62% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 0.06% | 3.94% | 3.88% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.14% | 3.82% | 3.68% |
57.6% of SCHD is already inside ACWV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACWV or SCHD?
ACWV has an expense ratio of 0.20% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACWV or SCHD?
Over the past year ACWV returned +5.34% vs +25.92% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), ACWV annualized +8.31% vs +11.15% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACWV or SCHD?
SCHD has been the more volatile fund at 13.7% annualized versus 10.0% for ACWV. Worst drawdown: ACWV -28.8% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both ACWV and SCHD?
ACWV and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ACWV and SCHD?
57.6% of SCHD's money is in holdings ACWV also owns. 57.6% of SCHD's is in holdings ACWV also owns. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 376 positions we hold weights for in ACWV and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACWV or SCHD?
ACWV yields 1.86% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than ACWV?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWV is less concentrated, with 11.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.