COTG vs SCHD
Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, COTG or SCHD?
Trading-Leveraged Equity against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y.
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 | COTG | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.77% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $8M | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 5 | 103 |
| YTD Return | -0.29% | +23.46%Best |
| 1Y Return | -23.46% | +27.20%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.16% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 32.9% | 13.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Leverage Shares | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Trading-Leveraged Equity | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Sep 18, 2025 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
COTG 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
COTG vs SCHD Performance
Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG) is an ETF from Leverage Shares and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year COTG returned -23.46% while SCHD returned +27.20%. Year to date, COTG is down 0.29% versus a gain of 23.46% for SCHD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
COTG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 32.9% compared with 13.8% for SCHD. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
COTG charges 0.77% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $77 vs $6 annually, a gap of $71 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COTG currently yields 0.00% against 3.00% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 1 holding in COTG and 100 in SCHD, totalling 14.4% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 1 positions we hold weights for in COTG and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 5 and 103.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of COTG and SCHD you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, COTG or SCHD?
COTG has an expense ratio of 0.77% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $71 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, COTG or SCHD?
Over the past year COTG returned -23.46% vs +27.20% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, COTG or SCHD?
COTG has been the more volatile fund at 32.9% annualized versus 13.8% for SCHD.
Should I hold both COTG and SCHD?
COTG and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, COTG or SCHD?
COTG yields 0.00% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than COTG?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.