Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BWET vs SCHG: how they differ
BWET is a commodity fund and SCHG an equity index fund, and over the year BWET returned more, +5129.6% against +12.7%.
Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF.
| BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF | SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Breakwave | Schwab |
| What it is | Tanker Shipping | U.S. Large-Cap Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +5129.6% | +12.7% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5112.1 pts | −4.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.04% |
| Holdings | not filed | 193 |
BWET in plain words
BWET is a commodity fund tracking the Tanker Shipping. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +5129.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.
SCHG in plain words
SCHG is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 193 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, BWET or SCHG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BWET returned +5129.6% and SCHG returned +12.7%, so BWET returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BWET against SCHG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BWET-SCHG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources