JQUA vs SCHD
JPMorgan US Quality Factor ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, JQUA or SCHD?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. JQUA led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. JQUA is less concentrated, with 18.6% 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 | JQUA | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.12% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $8.7B | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.04% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 313 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +18.38% | +21.73%Best |
| 1Y Return | +20.43% | +26.35%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.34%Best | +16.02% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.44%Best | +9.26% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.9%Best | -33.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,786Best | $15,571 |
| Top 10 Weight | 18.6%Best | 41.8% |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 8, 2017 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2017 to Sep 25, 2026 (8.9 years).
JQUA 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 8.9 years both funds cover.
JQUA vs SCHD Performance
JPMorgan US Quality Factor ETF (JQUA) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year JQUA returned +20.43% while SCHD returned +26.35%. Year to date, JQUA is up 18.38% versus a gain of 21.73% for SCHD.
Over three years, JQUA compounded at +21.34% per year against +16.02% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +13.44% and +9.26% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, JQUA has the edge at +14.05% annualized vs +10.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 15.3% for JQUA. 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 -32.9% for JQUA 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 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JQUA charges 0.12% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $12 vs $6 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JQUA currently yields 1.04% against 3.00% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
10.5% of JQUA's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 65.1% of SCHD's money is in holdings JQUA also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
31 positions in common, counted across the 303 positions we hold weights for in JQUA and 100 in SCHD, against full books of 313 and 103.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 68 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for JQUA (34.9% of the fund), and 259 for JQUA that do not appear in SCHD (86.9%).
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 JQUA | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 1.13% | 4.77% | 3.64% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 0.26% | 4.69% | 4.43% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.23% | 4.70% | 4.47% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 0.93% | 3.88% | 2.95% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.97% | 3.83% | 2.86% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.70% | 4.02% | 3.32% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 0.40% | 3.94% | 3.54% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.07% | 4.17% | 4.10% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.71% | 3.13% | 2.42% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.48% | 3.33% | 2.85% |
65.1% of SCHD is already inside JQUA.
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, JQUA or SCHD?
JQUA has an expense ratio of 0.12% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JQUA or SCHD?
Over the past year JQUA returned +20.43% vs +26.35% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), JQUA annualized +14.05% vs +10.78% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JQUA or SCHD?
SCHD has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 15.3% for JQUA. Worst drawdown: JQUA -32.9% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both JQUA and SCHD?
JQUA and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, 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 JQUA and SCHD?
65.1% of SCHD's money is in holdings JQUA also owns. 65.1% of SCHD's is in holdings JQUA also owns. They hold 31 positions in common, counted across the 303 positions we hold weights for in JQUA and 100 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, JQUA or SCHD?
JQUA yields 1.04% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than JQUA?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. JQUA led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. JQUA is less concentrated, with 18.6% 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.