SCHM vs VTI
Schwab US Mid Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, SCHM or VTI?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
SCHM led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. SCHM is less concentrated, with 12.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | SCHM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Tie | 0.03%Tie |
| AUM | $14.7B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.24% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 495 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +14.96%Best | +12.30% |
| 1Y Return | +17.46%Best | +16.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.23% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.87% | +12.36%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 14.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.4% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,605 | $17,908Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 12.4%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jan 13, 2011 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 13, 2011 to Sep 18, 2026 (15.7 years).
SCHM vs VTI 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 15.7 years both funds cover.
SCHM vs VTI Performance
Schwab US Mid Cap ETF (SCHM) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SCHM returned +17.46% while VTI returned +16.08%. Year to date, SCHM is up 14.96% versus a gain of 12.30% for VTI.
Over three years, SCHM compounded at +16.23% per year against +21.01% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.87% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.24% annualized vs +10.07%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 14.6% for VTI. 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 -42.4% for SCHM and -35.0% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHM charges 0.03% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $3 annually. On income, SCHM currently yields 1.24% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.5% of SCHM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 7.6% of VTI's money is in holdings SCHM also owns.
Most of SCHM is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
481 positions in common, counted across the 492 positions we hold weights for in SCHM and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 495 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 719 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for SCHM (90.1% of the fund), and 4 for SCHM that do not appear in VTI (0.4%).
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 SCHM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNDKSandisk Corp/De | 4.32% | 0.25% | 4.07% |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 1.33% | 0.08% | 1.25% |
| BECfd Bloom Energy Corp- A | 1.01% | 0.08% | 0.93% |
| CIENCiena Corp | 1.01% | 0.07% | 0.94% |
| COHRCoherent Corp | 1.01% | 0.07% | 0.94% |
| MRNAModerna therapeutics | 0.92% | 0.03% | 0.89% |
| RVMDRevolution Medicines Inc | 0.77% | 0.05% | 0.72% |
| FLEX:SIFlex Ltd | 0.75% | 0.06% | 0.69% |
| TWLOTwilio Inc. Class A | 0.67% | 0.04% | 0.63% |
| STLDSteel Dynamics, Inc. | 0.59% | 0.05% | 0.54% |
98.5% of SCHM is already inside VTI.
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, SCHM or VTI?
SCHM has an expense ratio of 0.03% while VTI charges 0.03%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, SCHM or VTI?
Over the past year SCHM returned +17.46% vs +16.08% for VTI, so SCHM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), SCHM annualized +10.07% vs +12.24% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHM or VTI?
SCHM has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 14.6% for VTI. Worst drawdown: SCHM -42.4% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both SCHM and VTI?
SCHM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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 SCHM and VTI?
98.5% of SCHM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 7.6% of VTI's is in holdings SCHM also owns. They hold 481 positions in common, counted across the 492 positions we hold weights for in SCHM and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHM or VTI?
SCHM yields 1.24% while VTI yields 1.03%, so SCHM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than SCHM?
SCHM led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. SCHM is less concentrated, with 12.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.