SCHA vs VYM
Schwab US Small-Cap ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, SCHA or VYM?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHA has a lower expense ratio. SCHA led over 1Y and the full window, VYM over 3Y and 5Y. SCHA is less concentrated, with 9.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%.
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 | SCHA | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.04% |
| AUM | $22.7B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.07% | 2.24% |
| Holdings | 1,710 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +20.47%Best | +14.82% |
| 1Y Return | +27.23%Best | +20.84% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.09% | +18.64%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.38% | +12.28%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.2% | 13.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.0% | -35.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,276 | $17,845Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 9.1%Best | 25.9% |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 3, 2009 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 3, 2009 to Sep 4, 2026 (16.8 years).
SCHA vs VYM 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 16.8 years both funds cover.
SCHA vs VYM Performance
Schwab US Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SCHA returned +27.23% while VYM returned +20.84%. Year to date, SCHA is up 20.47% versus a gain of 14.82% for VYM.
Over three years, SCHA compounded at +18.09% per year against +18.64% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +7.38% and +12.28% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, SCHA has the edge at +11.29% annualized vs +10.51%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 13.1% for VYM. 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 -43.0% for SCHA and -35.7% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHA charges 0.03% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $4 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SCHA currently yields 1.07% against 2.24% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
22.3% of SCHA's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 4.3% of VYM's money is in holdings SCHA also owns.
SCHA and VYM share little of their money.
257 positions in common, counted across the 1,706 positions we hold weights for in SCHA and 603 in VYM, against full books of 1,710 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 323 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for SCHA (93.1% of the fund), and 1,258 for SCHA that do not appear in VYM (75.9%).
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 SCHA | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PNFPPinnacle Financial Partners In Common Stock Usd1.0 | 0.33% | 0.06% | 0.27% |
| BPOPPopular Inc_None_0 | 0.24% | 0.04% | 0.20% |
| SSBSouth State Corp | 0.22% | 0.04% | 0.18% |
| WTFCWintrust Financial Corp | 0.22% | 0.04% | 0.18% |
| UMBFUmb Financial Corp. | 0.22% | 0.04% | 0.18% |
| RRyder System Inc | 0.21% | 0.04% | 0.17% |
| FLSFlowserve Corp. | 0.21% | 0.04% | 0.17% |
| PRIPrimerica Inc (pri) | 0.21% | 0.04% | 0.17% |
| OSKOshkosh Corp. | 0.20% | 0.04% | 0.16% |
| COLBColumbia Banking System Inc Common Stock | 0.19% | 0.04% | 0.15% |
22.3% of SCHA is already inside VYM.
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, SCHA or VYM?
SCHA has an expense ratio of 0.03% while VYM charges 0.04%. SCHA is the cheaper option, by $1 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SCHA or VYM?
Over the past year SCHA returned +27.23% vs +20.84% for VYM, so SCHA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), SCHA annualized +11.29% vs +10.51% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHA or VYM?
SCHA has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 13.1% for VYM. Worst drawdown: SCHA -43.0% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both SCHA and VYM?
SCHA and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 SCHA and VYM?
22.3% of SCHA's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 4.3% of VYM's is in holdings SCHA also owns. They hold 257 positions in common, counted across the 1,706 positions we hold weights for in SCHA and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHA or VYM?
SCHA yields 1.07% while VYM yields 2.24%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than SCHA?
SCHA has a lower expense ratio. SCHA led over 1Y and the full window, VYM over 3Y and 5Y. SCHA is less concentrated, with 9.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.