IWM vs SCHA
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Schwab US Small-Cap ETF
Quick Verdict
SCHA has a lower expense ratio. SCHA delivered stronger 1-year returns. IWM offers more diversification with 1,996 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IWM | SCHA | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $81.2B | $22.7B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,996 | 1,710 | |
| YTD Return | +17.28% | +17.61% | |
| 1Y Return | +25.52% | +25.58% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.30% | +17.20% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.34% | +6.77% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.9% | 19.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -59.9% | -43.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Nov 3, 2009 |
IWM vs SCHA Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Schwab US Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) is a ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year IWM returned +25.52% while SCHA returned +25.58%. Year to date, IWM is up 17.28% versus a gain of 17.61% for SCHA.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +17.30% per year against +17.20% for SCHA; over five years the annualized figures are +6.34% and +6.77% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, SCHA has the edge at +11.13% annualized vs +7.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.9% compared with 19.2% for SCHA. 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 -59.9% for IWM and -43.0% for SCHA. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWM charges 0.19% per year while SCHA charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWM currently yields 0.91% against 1.07% for SCHA.
Holdings Overlap
IWM and SCHA share 1144 holdings out of 2157 unique holdings combined, representing a 53.5% weight overlap.
High overlap means holding both may not provide much additional diversification.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IWM or SCHA?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while SCHA charges 0.03%. SCHA is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $16 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IWM or SCHA?
Over the past year IWM returned +25.52% vs +25.58% for SCHA, so SCHA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), IWM annualized +7.56% vs +11.13% for SCHA. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IWM or SCHA?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 19.9% annualized versus 19.2% for SCHA. Worst drawdown: IWM -59.9% vs SCHA -43.0%.
Should I hold both IWM and SCHA?
IWM and SCHA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IWM and SCHA?
IWM and SCHA share 1144 common holdings with a 53.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2157 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or SCHA?
IWM yields 0.91% while SCHA yields 1.07%, so SCHA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.