SCHD vs VALQ
Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF vs American Century US Quality Value ETF
Which is better, SCHD or VALQ?
SCHD has been ahead.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VALQ is less concentrated, with 23.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%.
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 | SCHD | VALQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06%Best | 0.29% |
| AUM | $112.1B | $338M |
| Dividend Yield | 3.00% | 1.74% |
| Holdings | 103 | 224 |
| YTD Return | +23.46%Best | +7.92% |
| 1Y Return | +27.20%Best | +11.80% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.41%Best | +14.79% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.16%Best | +9.58% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.2%Tie | 16.2%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -33.4%Best | -38.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,223Best | $15,800 |
| Top 10 Weight | 41.8% | 23.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | American Century Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 20, 2011 | Jan 11, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 16, 2018 to Sep 18, 2026 (8.7 years).
SCHD vs VALQ 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 8.7 years both funds cover.
SCHD vs VALQ Performance
Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and American Century US Quality Value ETF (VALQ) is an ETF from American Century Investments. Over the past year SCHD returned +27.20% while VALQ returned +11.80%. Year to date, SCHD is up 23.46% versus a gain of 7.92% for VALQ.
Over three years, SCHD compounded at +15.41% per year against +14.79% for VALQ; over five years the annualized figures are +10.16% and +9.58% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, SCHD has the edge at +10.24% annualized vs +8.00%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHD and VALQ have been equally volatile, both at 16.2% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -33.4% for SCHD and -38.2% for VALQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHD charges 0.06% per year while VALQ charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $6 vs $29 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SCHD currently yields 3.00% against 1.74% for VALQ.
Holdings Overlap
72.0% of SCHD's money is in holdings VALQ also owns. 34.4% of VALQ's money is in holdings SCHD also owns.
Most of SCHD is already inside VALQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
35 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in SCHD and 241 in VALQ, against full books of 103 and 224.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 188 positions for VALQ that do not appear in our book for SCHD (63.5% of the fund), and 64 for SCHD that do not appear in VALQ (27.9%).
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 SCHD | Weight in VALQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 4.77% | 2.77% | 2.00% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 3.82% | 2.73% | 1.09% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 3.88% | 2.64% | 1.24% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 3.83% | 2.50% | 1.33% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 3.33% | 2.77% | 0.56% |
| LMTLockheed Martin Corp | 2.78% | 2.57% | 0.21% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 4.17% | 1.13% | 3.04% |
| PEPPepsico Inc. | 3.64% | 1.59% | 2.05% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 3.13% | 1.86% | 1.27% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 3.97% | 0.97% | 3.00% |
72.0% of SCHD is already inside VALQ.
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, SCHD or VALQ?
SCHD has an expense ratio of 0.06% while VALQ charges 0.29%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $23 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SCHD or VALQ?
Over the past year SCHD returned +27.20% vs +11.80% for VALQ, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), SCHD annualized +10.24% vs +8.00% for VALQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHD or VALQ?
SCHD and VALQ have been equally volatile, both at 16.2% annualized. Worst drawdown: SCHD -33.4% vs VALQ -38.2%.
Should I hold both SCHD and VALQ?
SCHD and VALQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 SCHD and VALQ?
72.0% of SCHD's money is in holdings VALQ also owns. 34.4% of VALQ's is in holdings SCHD also owns. They hold 35 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in SCHD and 241 in VALQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHD or VALQ?
SCHD yields 3.00% while VALQ yields 1.74%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VALQ better than SCHD?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VALQ is less concentrated, with 23.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.