IVV vs SCHH
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs Schwab US REIT ETF
Which is better, IVV or SCHH?
Large Cap Blend against Mid Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.6%.
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 | IVV | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.07% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $11.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 2.80% |
| Holdings | 508 | 120 |
| YTD Return | +13.32%Best | +8.56% |
| 1Y Return | +17.08%Best | +6.99% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.72%Best | +10.77% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.20%Best | +1.62% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 17.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9%Best | -44.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,588Best | $10,837 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 51.6% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jan 13, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 13, 2011 to Sep 23, 2026 (15.7 years).
IVV vs SCHH 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 15.7 years both funds cover.
IVV vs SCHH Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Schwab US REIT ETF (SCHH) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% while SCHH returned +6.99%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.32% versus a gain of 8.56% for SCHH.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +22.72% per year against +10.77% for SCHH; over five years the annualized figures are +13.20% and +1.62% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.64% annualized vs +4.75%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHH has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 14.2% for IVV. 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 -33.9% for IVV and -44.2% for SCHH. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while SCHH charges 0.07%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $7 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 2.80% for SCHH.
Holdings Overlap
1.7% of IVV's money is in holdings SCHH also owns. 74.0% of SCHH's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of SCHH is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
28 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 118 in SCHH, against full books of 508 and 120.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 89 positions for SCHH that do not appear in our book for IVV (26.1% of the fund), and 454 for IVV that do not appear in SCHH (96.9%).
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 IVV | Weight in SCHH | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLWelltower, Inc. | 0.25% | 11.06% | 10.81% |
| PLDPrologis Inc | 0.20% | 8.79% | 8.59% |
| SPGSimon Property Group Inc | 0.10% | 4.59% | 4.49% |
| DLRDigital Realty Trust Inc. | 0.10% | 4.54% | 4.44% |
| EQIXEquinix Inc. Real Estate Investment Trust | 0.16% | 4.28% | 4.12% |
| AMTAmerican Tower Corporation | 0.12% | 4.24% | 4.12% |
| ORealty Income Corp. | 0.09% | 4.02% | 3.93% |
| PSAPublic Storage | 0.08% | 3.62% | 3.54% |
| EQRVivmark Residential | 0.07% | 3.36% | 3.29% |
| VTRVentas Inc . | 0.07% | 3.12% | 3.05% |
74.0% of SCHH is already inside IVV.
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, IVV or SCHH?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while SCHH charges 0.07%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or SCHH?
Over the past year IVV returned +17.08% vs +6.99% for SCHH, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), IVV annualized +12.64% vs +4.75% for SCHH. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or SCHH?
SCHH has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 14.2% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -33.9% vs SCHH -44.2%.
Should I hold both IVV and SCHH?
IVV and SCHH have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, 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 IVV and SCHH?
74.0% of SCHH's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 74.0% of SCHH's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 28 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 118 in SCHH.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or SCHH?
IVV yields 1.06% while SCHH yields 2.80%, so SCHH currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHH better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.