GINN vs SCHD
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, GINN or SCHD?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. GINN led over 3Y, SCHD over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. GINN is less concentrated, with 15.7% 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 | GINN | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $198M | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.12% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 483 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +11.49% | +21.33%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.21% | +25.15%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.59%Best | +15.43% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.46% | +9.32%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.3% | 14.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -41.3% | -16.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,675 | $15,613Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 15.7%Best | 41.8% |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 9, 2020 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2020 to Sep 24, 2026 (5.9 years).
GINN 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 5.9 years both funds cover.
GINN vs SCHD Performance
Goldman Sachs Innovate Equity ETF (GINN) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year GINN returned +13.21% while SCHD returned +25.15%. Year to date, GINN is up 11.49% versus a gain of 21.33% for SCHD.
Over three years, GINN compounded at +21.59% per year against +15.43% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +6.46% and +9.32% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, SCHD has the edge at +12.34% annualized vs +9.30%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GINN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.3% compared with 14.7% 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 -41.3% for GINN 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 0.59. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GINN charges 0.50% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $6 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GINN currently yields 1.12% against 3.00% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
5.0% of GINN's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 32.5% of SCHD's money is in holdings GINN also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
14 positions in common, counted across the 474 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 483 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 85 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for GINN (67.4% of the fund), and 308 for GINN that do not appear in SCHD (69.6%).
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 GINN | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.64% | 4.77% | 4.13% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 0.56% | 4.69% | 4.13% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.49% | 4.70% | 4.21% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.43% | 3.33% | 2.90% |
| LMTLockheed Martin Corp | 0.45% | 2.78% | 2.33% |
| BXBlackstone Group Inc. Class A | 0.43% | 2.59% | 2.16% |
| QCOMQualcomm Inc. | 0.37% | 2.52% | 2.15% |
| CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa | 0.33% | 2.31% | 1.98% |
| TGTTarget Corp Common Stock Usd.0833 | 0.28% | 1.78% | 1.50% |
| FFord Motor Credit | 0.35% | 1.33% | 0.98% |
32.5% of SCHD is already inside GINN.
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, GINN or SCHD?
GINN has an expense ratio of 0.50% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $44 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GINN or SCHD?
Over the past year GINN returned +13.21% vs +25.15% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GINN annualized +9.30% vs +12.34% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GINN or SCHD?
GINN has been the more volatile fund at 18.3% annualized versus 14.7% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: GINN -41.3% vs SCHD -16.9%.
Should I hold both GINN and SCHD?
GINN and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.59, 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 GINN and SCHD?
32.5% of SCHD's money is in holdings GINN also owns. 32.5% of SCHD's is in holdings GINN also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 474 positions we hold weights for in GINN and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, GINN or SCHD?
GINN yields 1.12% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than GINN?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. GINN led over 3Y, SCHD over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. GINN is less concentrated, with 15.7% 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.