FAD vs SCHD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, FAD or SCHD?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. FAD led over 3Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y and 5Y. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.5%.
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 | FAD | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.63% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $584M | $112.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 3.13% |
| Holdings | 677 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +12.67% | +27.56%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.84% | +30.29%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98%Best | +16.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.64% | +10.23%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 13.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.3% | -33.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,134 | $16,274Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 4.8%Best | 41.5% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 8, 2007 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 20, 2011 to Sep 4, 2026 (14.9 years).
FAD 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.
FAD vs SCHD Performance
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year FAD returned +18.84% while SCHD returned +30.29%. Year to date, FAD is up 12.67% versus a gain of 27.56% for SCHD.
Over three years, FAD compounded at +20.98% per year against +16.37% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +8.64% and +10.23% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, FAD has the edge at +13.47% annualized vs +11.53%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FAD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 13.6% for SCHD. 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 -37.3% for FAD 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 0.75. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FAD charges 0.63% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $63 vs $6 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FAD currently yields 0.10% against 3.13% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
2.6% of FAD's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 24.1% of SCHD's money is in holdings FAD also owns.
SCHD and FAD share little of their money.
16 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 677 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 82 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for FAD (75.6% of the fund), and 641 for FAD that do not appear in SCHD (94.8%).
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 FAD | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.21% | 4.62% | 4.41% |
| MRKMerck & Co. Inc. | 0.27% | 4.26% | 3.99% |
| KOCoca-cola Co. | 0.10% | 4.20% | 4.10% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 0.11% | 2.72% | 2.61% |
| QCOMQualcomm | 0.23% | 2.55% | 2.32% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 0.19% | 1.49% | 1.30% |
| FFord Motor Credit | 0.28% | 1.37% | 1.09% |
| CINFCincinnati Financial Corp. | 0.45% | 0.69% | 0.24% |
| PAYXPaychex, Inc. | 0.11% | 0.97% | 0.86% |
| ARESAres Management Corp Preferred Stock 7 | 0.11% | 0.72% | 0.61% |
24.1% of SCHD is already inside FAD.
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, FAD or SCHD?
FAD has an expense ratio of 0.63% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FAD or SCHD?
Over the past year FAD returned +18.84% vs +30.29% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), FAD annualized +13.47% vs +11.53% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FAD or SCHD?
FAD has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 13.6% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: FAD -37.3% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both FAD and SCHD?
FAD and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.75, 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 FAD and SCHD?
24.1% of SCHD's money is in holdings FAD also owns. 24.1% of SCHD's is in holdings FAD also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, FAD or SCHD?
FAD yields 0.10% while SCHD yields 3.13%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than FAD?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. FAD led over 3Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y and 5Y. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.