Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
EWZ vs SCHB: how they differ
EWZ and SCHB are both equity index funds, and over the year EWZ returned more, +32.9% against +17.2%.
iShares MSCI Brazil ETF and Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF.
| EWZ iShares MSCI Brazil ETF | SCHB Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Schwab |
| What it is | MSCI Brazil | US broad market, book from ITOT |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.9% | +17.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.4 pts | −0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.59% | not published |
| Holdings | 47 | not filed |
EWZ in plain words
EWZ is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Brazil. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.59% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 47 positions, with the top ten at 59.3%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Apr 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
SCHB in plain words
SCHB is an index equity fund tracking the US broad market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, EWZ or SCHB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EWZ returned +32.9% and SCHB returned +17.2%, so EWZ 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, EWZ against SCHB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EWZ-SCHB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources