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

HYG vs SCHB: how they differ

HYG is a bond index fund and SCHB an equity index fund, and over the year SCHB returned more, +17.2% against +2.9%.

iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF and Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF.

HYG and SCHB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
HYG
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF
SCHB
Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isUS high yield bondsUS broad market, book from ITOT
Total return, 1 year+2.9%+17.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−14.6 pts−0.3 pts
Expense ratio0.49%not published

HYG in plain words

HYG is a bond fund tracking the US high yield bonds. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +2.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.49% a year.

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, HYG or SCHB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, HYG returned +2.9% and SCHB returned +17.2%, so SCHB 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.

HYG against SCHB, 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, HYG against SCHB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/HYG-SCHB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources