RFDA vs SCHV
ALPS Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF vs Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF
Which is better, RFDA or SCHV?
Each has led over a different period.
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. RFDA led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. SCHV is less concentrated, with 20.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.8%.
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 | RFDA | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.52% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $78M | $15.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.85% | 1.77% |
| Holdings | 77 | 560 |
| YTD Return | +14.80% | +15.24%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.87% | +20.45%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.11%Best | +19.16% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.22%Best | +10.74% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Tie | 15.1%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -34.8%Best | -37.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,604Best | $16,654 |
| Top 10 Weight | 26.8% | 20.9%Best |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 6, 2016 | Dec 11, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 7, 2016 to Oct 13, 2026 (10.3 years).
RFDA vs SCHV 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 10.3 years both funds cover.
RFDA vs SCHV Performance
ALPS Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) is an ETF from ALPS Advisors and Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year RFDA returned +16.87% while SCHV returned +20.45%. Year to date, RFDA is up 14.80% versus a gain of 15.24% for SCHV.
Over three years, RFDA compounded at +20.11% per year against +19.16% for SCHV; over five years the annualized figures are +13.22% and +10.74% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, RFDA has the edge at +12.12% annualized vs +9.61%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RFDA and SCHV have been equally volatile, both at 15.1% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -34.8% for RFDA and -37.1% for SCHV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RFDA charges 0.52% per year while SCHV charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $52 vs $4 annually, a gap of $48 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RFDA currently yields 1.85% against 1.77% for SCHV.
Holdings Overlap
66.6% of RFDA's money is in holdings SCHV also owns. 28.1% of SCHV's money is in holdings RFDA also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
54 positions in common, counted across the 76 positions we hold weights for in RFDA and 555 in SCHV, against full books of 77 and 560.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 485 positions for SCHV that do not appear in our book for RFDA (70.6% of the fund), and 19 for RFDA that do not appear in SCHV (26.5%).
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 RFDA | Weight in SCHV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 3.08% | 3.02% | 0.06% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 3.17% | 2.02% | 1.15% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 2.02% | 2.17% | 0.15% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 2.70% | 0.75% | 1.95% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 2.23% | 1.12% | 1.11% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 2.58% | 0.53% | 2.05% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 1.39% | 1.48% | 0.09% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 1.56% | 1.08% | 0.48% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 1.45% | 1.19% | 0.26% |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 1.50% | 0.96% | 0.54% |
66.6% of RFDA is already inside SCHV.
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, RFDA or SCHV?
RFDA has an expense ratio of 0.52% while SCHV charges 0.04%. SCHV is the cheaper option, by $48 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RFDA or SCHV?
Over the past year RFDA returned +16.87% vs +20.45% for SCHV, so SCHV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), RFDA annualized +12.12% vs +9.61% for SCHV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RFDA or SCHV?
RFDA and SCHV have been equally volatile, both at 15.1% annualized. Worst drawdown: RFDA -34.8% vs SCHV -37.1%.
Should I hold both RFDA and SCHV?
RFDA and SCHV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RFDA and SCHV?
66.6% of RFDA's money is in holdings SCHV also owns. 28.1% of SCHV's is in holdings RFDA also owns. They hold 54 positions in common, counted across the 76 positions we hold weights for in RFDA and 555 in SCHV.
Which pays a higher dividend, RFDA or SCHV?
RFDA yields 1.85% while SCHV yields 1.77%, so RFDA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHV better than RFDA?
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. RFDA led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHV over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. SCHV is less concentrated, with 20.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.