Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DYNF vs SCHX: how they differ

DYNF and SCHX hold 61% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and SCHX hold 61% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and SCHX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFSCHX
NVIDIA Corp8.62%7.51%
Apple Inc7.75%6.71%
Microsoft Corp5.35%4.89%
Amazon.com Inc4.42%3.87%
Broadcom Inc3.25%3.10%
Alphabet Inc2.87%3.24%
Alphabet Inc2.10%2.58%
Meta Platforms Inc2.50%2.02%
Tesla Inc1.74%1.79%
Micron Technology Inc1.35%1.60%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc2.38%1.27%
JPMorgan Chase & Co3.59%1.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in SCHX
Lumentum Holdings Inc 0.16%Mastercard Inc 0.59%
Sandisk Corp/DE 0.12%Chevron Corp 0.50%
ATI Inc 0.06%Coca-Cola Co/The 0.45%
Anglogold Ashanti Plc 0.05%Merck & Co Inc 0.43%
Millicom International Cellular SA 0.04%QUALCOMM Inc 0.39%
Revolution Medicines Inc 0.03%KLA Corp 0.37%
Rocket Cos Inc 0.03%Linde PLC 0.34%
Halozyme Therapeutics Inc 0.03%Palo Alto Networks Inc 0.33%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

DYNF and SCHX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveU.S. Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+16.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−0.7 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%94.9%
Holdings187748

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% 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 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or SCHX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and SCHX returned +16.8%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or SCHX?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and SCHX charges 0.03%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and SCHX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 95% of SCHX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 61% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

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.

DYNF against SCHX, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, DYNF against SCHX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-SCHX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources