IWM vs SCHD
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, IWM or SCHD?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 3Y, SCHD over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% 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 | IWM | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $79.0B | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 1,996 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +16.23% | +23.68%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.72% | +28.36%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.96%Best | +16.20% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.77% | +10.07%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8% | 13.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.3% | -33.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,875 | $16,156Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.2%Best | 41.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 20, 2011 to Sep 22, 2026 (14.9 years).
IWM 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.
IWM vs SCHD Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year IWM returned +18.72% while SCHD returned +28.36%. Year to date, IWM is up 16.23% versus a gain of 23.68% for SCHD.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +18.96% per year against +16.20% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +6.77% and +10.07% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SCHD has the edge at +11.26% annualized vs +10.47%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 13.7% 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 -42.3% for IWM 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 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWM charges 0.19% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $6 annually, a gap of $13 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWM currently yields 0.91% against 3.00% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
1.9% of IWM's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 1.5% of SCHD's money is in holdings IWM also owns.
IWM and SCHD share little of their money.
33 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 1,996 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 67 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for IWM (98.5% of the fund), and 1,652 for IWM that do not appear in SCHD (93.3%).
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 IWM | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MURMurphy Oil Corp | 0.16% | 0.12% | 0.04% |
| KFYKorn Ferry | 0.14% | 0.11% | 0.03% |
| MCMoelis & Co_None_0 | 0.13% | 0.12% | 0.01% |
| CVBFCvb Financial Corp. | 0.12% | 0.09% | 0.03% |
| APAMArtisan Partners Asset Management, Inc. | 0.09% | 0.07% | 0.02% |
| CNSCohen & Steers Inc | 0.08% | 0.05% | 0.03% |
| LANCLancaster Colony Corp | 0.07% | 0.06% | 0.01% |
| BANRBanner Corp_None_0 | 0.07% | 0.06% | 0.01% |
| AGMFederal Agricultural Mortgage Corp | 0.07% | 0.05% | 0.02% |
| IPARInter Parfums Inc | 0.07% | 0.05% | 0.02% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of IWM and SCHD you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IWM or SCHD?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $13 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWM or SCHD?
Over the past year IWM returned +18.72% vs +28.36% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), IWM annualized +10.47% vs +11.26% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWM or SCHD?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 13.7% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: IWM -42.3% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both IWM and SCHD?
IWM and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, 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 IWM and SCHD?
1.9% of IWM's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 1.5% of SCHD's is in holdings IWM also owns. They hold 33 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or SCHD?
IWM yields 0.91% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than IWM?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 3Y, SCHD over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% 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.