PQJL vs SCHD
PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - July vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, PQJL 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 | PQJL | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $25M | $112.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.01% | 3.00% |
| Holdings | 8 | 103 |
| YTD Return | +7.51% | +23.46%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.54% | +27.20%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +10.16% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.3%Best | 13.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -12.3%Best | -14.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $12,456 | $13,035Best |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 27, 2024 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026 (1.7 years).
PQJL 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
PQJL vs SCHD Performance
PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - July (PQJL) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year PQJL returned +10.54% while SCHD returned +27.20%. Year to date, PQJL is up 7.51% versus a gain of 23.46% 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 13.7% compared with 9.3% for PQJL. 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 -12.3% for PQJL and -14.0% 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 0.10. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PQJL charges 0.50% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $6 annually, a gap of $44 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PQJL currently yields 0.01% against 3.00% for SCHD.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of PQJL 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, PQJL or SCHD?
PQJL has an expense ratio of 0.50% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $44 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PQJL or SCHD?
Over the past year PQJL returned +10.54% vs +27.20% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), PQJL annualized +13.79% vs +16.87% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PQJL or SCHD?
SCHD has been the more volatile fund at 13.7% annualized versus 9.3% for PQJL. Worst drawdown: PQJL -12.3% vs SCHD -14.0%.
Should I hold both PQJL and SCHD?
PQJL and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.10, 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, PQJL or SCHD?
PQJL yields 0.01% while SCHD yields 3.00%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than PQJL?
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.