Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IJR vs SCHH: how they differ
IJR and SCHH hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and IJR returned more over the year.
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IJR and SCHH hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IJR | SCHH |
|---|---|---|
| RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES INC | 0.45% | 0.52% |
| MACERICH COMPANY (THE) | 0.40% | 0.44% |
| TERRENO REALTY CORP | 0.38% | 0.49% |
| ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES REALTY TRUST INC | 0.36% | 0.46% |
| PHILLIPS EDISON & COMPANY INC | 0.29% | 0.36% |
| OUTFRONT MEDIA INC | 0.28% | 0.33% |
| MILLROSE PROPERTIES INC | 0.26% | 0.31% |
| TANGER INC | 0.25% | 0.29% |
| BROADSTONE NET LEASE INC | 0.22% | 0.27% |
| APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT INC | 0.20% | 0.23% |
| SL GREEN REALTY CORP | 0.20% | 0.23% |
| NATIONAL HEALTH INVESTORS INC | 0.20% | 0.25% |
| Only in IJR | Only in SCHH |
|---|---|
| FORMFACTOR INC 0.69% | Welltower Inc 9.64% |
| VIASAT INC 0.68% | Prologis Inc 8.97% |
| MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC 0.66% | Equinix Inc 4.89% |
| ARGAN INC 0.62% | Simon Property Group Inc 4.48% |
| BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.61% | Digital Realty Trust Inc 4.36% |
| ELEMENT SOLUTIONS INC 0.61% | American Tower Corp 4.35% |
| MAXLINEAR INC 0.60% | Realty Income Corp 4.00% |
| KRYSTAL BIOTECH INC 0.54% | Public Storage 3.41% |
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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| IJR iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF | SCHH Schwab U.S. REIT ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Schwab |
| What it is | S&P SmallCap 600 | US REIT |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.9% | +9.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +2.4 pts | −7.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 74.0% |
| Holdings | 603 | 117 |
IJR in plain words
IJR is an index equity fund tracking the S&P SmallCap 600. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 603 positions, with the top ten at 6.0%. It sat 5.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
SCHH in plain words
SCHH is an index equity fund tracking the US REIT. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +9.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 74% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 117 positions, with the top ten at 49.8%. It sat 6.7% below its high of Jul 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IJR or SCHH?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJR returned +19.9% and SCHH returned +9.8%, so IJR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IJR or SCHH?
- IJR charges 0.06% a year and SCHH charges 0.07%, so IJR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IJR and SCHH overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJR and 74% of SCHH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IJR against SCHH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IJR-SCHH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources