MLPI vs SCHD
NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, MLPI 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 | MLPI | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.68% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $872M | $119.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 13.31% | 2.96% |
| Holdings | 59 | 204 |
| YTD Return | -0.58% | +31.72%Best |
| 1Y Return | +0.81% | +37.84%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +19.79% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.20% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 118.2% | 13.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -81.4% | -33.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 15.1 years | $26,662 | $52,590Best |
| Fund Family | NEOS | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 18, 2025 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 15.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 20, 2011 to Nov 9, 2026 (15.1 years).
MLPI 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 15.1 years both funds cover.
MLPI vs SCHD Performance
NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI) is an ETF from NEOS and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year MLPI returned +0.81% while SCHD returned +37.84%. Year to date, MLPI is down 0.58% versus a gain of 31.72% for SCHD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MLPI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 118.2% compared with 13.8% 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 -81.4% for MLPI 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 0.15. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MLPI charges 0.68% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $68 vs $6 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MLPI currently yields 13.31% against 2.96% for SCHD.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of MLPI 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, MLPI or SCHD?
MLPI has an expense ratio of 0.68% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $62 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MLPI or SCHD?
Over the past year MLPI returned +0.81% vs +37.84% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), MLPI annualized +6.71% vs +11.62% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MLPI or SCHD?
MLPI has been the more volatile fund at 118.2% annualized versus 13.8% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: MLPI -81.4% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both MLPI and SCHD?
MLPI and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.15, 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, MLPI or SCHD?
MLPI yields 13.31% while SCHD yields 2.96%, so MLPI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than MLPI?
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.