MARU vs SCHD
AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, MARU or SCHD?
Option Writing against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | MARU | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.74% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $34M | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 4 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +8.58% | +21.99%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.59% | +25.92%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.66% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.48% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.5%Best | 14.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -8.5%Best | -13.8% |
| $10,000 over 1.6 years | $12,282 | $12,450Best |
| Fund Family | AllianzIM | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Feb 28, 2025 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 3, 2025 to Sep 23, 2026 (1.6 years).
MARU 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 1.6 years both funds cover.
MARU vs SCHD Performance
AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 Uncapped Mar ETF (MARU) is an ETF from AllianzIM and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year MARU returned +10.59% while SCHD returned +25.92%. Year to date, MARU is up 8.58% versus a gain of 21.99% for SCHD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.5% compared with 8.5% for MARU. 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 -8.5% for MARU and -13.8% 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 0.23. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MARU charges 0.74% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $74 vs $6 annually, a gap of $68 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MARU currently yields 0.00% against 3.00% for SCHD.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of MARU 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, MARU or SCHD?
MARU has an expense ratio of 0.74% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $68 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MARU or SCHD?
Over the past year MARU returned +10.59% vs +25.92% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), MARU annualized +13.71% vs +14.68% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MARU or SCHD?
SCHD has been the more volatile fund at 14.5% annualized versus 8.5% for MARU. Worst drawdown: MARU -8.5% vs SCHD -13.8%.
Should I hold both MARU and SCHD?
MARU and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.23, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, MARU or SCHD?
MARU yields 0.00% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than MARU?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.