FLRG vs SCHD
Fidelity US Multifactor ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, FLRG or SCHD?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. FLRG led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. FLRG is less concentrated, with 36.5% 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 | FLRG | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $290M | $112.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.37% | 3.13% |
| Holdings | 103 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +12.75% | +27.56%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.53% | +30.29%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.71%Best | +16.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.01%Best | +10.23% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.6%Best | 15.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -19.6% | -16.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,631Best | $16,274 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.5%Best | 41.5% |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Sep 15, 2020 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 17, 2020 to Sep 4, 2026 (6 years).
FLRG 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 6 years both funds cover.
FLRG vs SCHD Performance
Fidelity US Multifactor ETF (FLRG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year FLRG returned +14.53% while SCHD returned +30.29%. Year to date, FLRG is up 12.75% versus a gain of 27.56% for SCHD.
Over three years, FLRG compounded at +18.71% per year against +16.37% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +12.01% and +10.23% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FLRG has the edge at +15.24% annualized vs +14.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 13.6% for FLRG. 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 -19.6% for FLRG and -16.9% 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 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLRG charges 0.15% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $6 annually, a gap of $9 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLRG currently yields 1.37% against 3.13% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
10.0% of FLRG's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 30.7% of SCHD's money is in holdings FLRG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
14 positions in common, counted across the 99 positions we hold weights for in FLRG and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 103 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 85 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for FLRG (69.2% of the fund), and 80 for FLRG that do not appear in SCHD (86.7%).
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 FLRG | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 1.12% | 4.26% | 3.14% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 1.08% | 3.96% | 2.88% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.43% | 3.84% | 3.41% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.88% | 3.31% | 2.43% |
| LMTLockheed Martin Corp | 0.97% | 2.99% | 2.02% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.12% | 2.72% | 1.60% |
| MOAltria Group Inc | 0.84% | 2.86% | 2.02% |
| QCOMQualcomm Inc. | 0.46% | 2.55% | 2.09% |
| CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa | 0.25% | 2.26% | 2.01% |
| KMBKimberly-Clark Corp. | 0.74% | 0.91% | 0.17% |
30.7% of SCHD is already inside FLRG.
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, FLRG or SCHD?
FLRG has an expense ratio of 0.15% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $9 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLRG or SCHD?
Over the past year FLRG returned +14.53% vs +30.29% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FLRG annualized +15.24% vs +14.28% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLRG or SCHD?
SCHD has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 13.6% for FLRG. Worst drawdown: FLRG -19.6% vs SCHD -16.9%.
Should I hold both FLRG and SCHD?
FLRG and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, 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 FLRG and SCHD?
30.7% of SCHD's money is in holdings FLRG also owns. 30.7% of SCHD's is in holdings FLRG also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 99 positions we hold weights for in FLRG and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLRG or SCHD?
FLRG yields 1.37% while SCHD yields 3.13%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than FLRG?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. FLRG led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. FLRG is less concentrated, with 36.5% 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.