SCHD vs XLF
Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF vs State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF
Which is better, SCHD or XLF?
Each has led over a different period.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y and the full window, XLF over 3Y and 5Y. SCHD is less concentrated, with 41.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%.
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 | XLF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06%Best | 0.08% |
| AUM | $112.1B | $54.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.00% | 1.40% |
| Holdings | 103 | 80 |
| YTD Return | +23.60%Best | +2.65% |
| 1Y Return | +28.29%Best | +4.78% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.25% | +20.15%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.25% | +10.71%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.7%Best | 18.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.4%Best | -43.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,289 | $16,632Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 41.8%Best | 56.8% |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | SPDR State Street Global Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 20, 2011 | Dec 16, 1998 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 20, 2011 to Sep 21, 2026 (14.9 years).
SCHD vs XLF 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 14.9 years both funds cover.
SCHD vs XLF Performance
Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year SCHD returned +28.29% while XLF returned +4.78%. Year to date, SCHD is up 23.60% versus a gain of 2.65% for XLF.
Over three years, SCHD compounded at +16.25% per year against +20.15% for XLF; over five years the annualized figures are +10.25% and +10.71% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, SCHD has the edge at +11.25% annualized vs +11.09%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XLF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.7% compared with 13.7% 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 -33.4% for SCHD and -43.3% for XLF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHD charges 0.06% per year while XLF charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $6 vs $8 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SCHD currently yields 3.00% against 1.40% for XLF.
Holdings Overlap
7.0% of SCHD's money is in holdings XLF also owns. 3.5% of XLF's money is in holdings SCHD also owns.
SCHD and XLF share little of their money.
8 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in SCHD and 77 in XLF, against full books of 103 and 80.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 68 positions for XLF that do not appear in our book for SCHD (96.2% of the fund), and 91 for SCHD that do not appear in XLF (92.9%).
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 XLF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BXBlackstone Group Inc. Class A | 2.59% | 1.26% | 1.33% |
| FITBFifth Third Bancorp | 1.19% | 0.60% | 0.59% |
| ARESAres Management Corp A | 0.74% | 0.36% | 0.38% |
| CINFCincinnati Financial Corp. | 0.64% | 0.33% | 0.31% |
| RFRegions Financial Corp. | 0.62% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| TROWT Rowe Price Grp | 0.58% | 0.29% | 0.29% |
| PFGPrincipalfinancialgroupinc. | 0.53% | 0.27% | 0.26% |
| ERIEErie Indemnity-a | 0.16% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of SCHD and XLF 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, SCHD or XLF?
SCHD has an expense ratio of 0.06% while XLF charges 0.08%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SCHD or XLF?
Over the past year SCHD returned +28.29% vs +4.78% for XLF, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), SCHD annualized +11.25% vs +11.09% for XLF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHD or XLF?
XLF has been the more volatile fund at 18.7% annualized versus 13.7% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: SCHD -33.4% vs XLF -43.3%.
Should I hold both SCHD and XLF?
SCHD and XLF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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 SCHD and XLF?
7.0% of SCHD's money is in holdings XLF also owns. 3.5% of XLF's is in holdings SCHD also owns. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in SCHD and 77 in XLF.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHD or XLF?
SCHD yields 3.00% while XLF yields 1.40%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XLF better than SCHD?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. SCHD led over 1Y and the full window, XLF over 3Y and 5Y. SCHD is less concentrated, with 41.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.