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

IVV vs SCHH: how they differ

IVV and SCHH hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and IVV returned more over the year.

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IVV and SCHH hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IVV and SCHH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIVVSCHH
Welltower, Inc.0.25%9.64%
Prologis, Inc.0.20%8.97%
Equinix, Inc.0.16%4.89%
American Tower Corp.0.12%4.35%
Simon Property Group, Inc.0.11%4.48%
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.0.09%4.36%
Realty Income Corp.0.09%4.00%
Public Storage0.08%3.41%
Ventas, Inc.0.07%2.85%
Iron Mountain, Inc.0.06%2.69%
Crown Castle, Inc.0.05%2.83%
Extra Space Storage, Inc.0.05%2.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IVVOnly in SCHH
NVIDIA Corp. 7.52%WP Carey Inc 1.16%
Apple, Inc. 6.59%Sun Communities Inc 1.02%
Microsoft Corp. 4.30%Omega Healthcare Investors Inc 0.98%
Amazon.com, Inc. 3.62%Gaming and Leisure Properties Inc 0.94%
Alphabet, Inc. 3.25%Lamar Advertising Co 0.94%
Broadcom, Inc. 2.77%Equity LifeStyle Properties Inc 0.85%
Alphabet, Inc. 2.59%EastGroup Properties Inc 0.76%
Micron Technology, Inc. 2.02%American Homes 4 Rent 0.74%

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.

IVV and SCHH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IVV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
SCHH
Schwab U.S. REIT ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isS&P 500US REIT
Total return, 1 year+17.6%+9.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+0.1 pts−7.7 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.07%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%74.0%
Holdings504117

IVV in plain words

IVV is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% 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 Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 504 positions, with the top ten at 36.4%.

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, IVV or SCHH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IVV returned +17.6% and SCHH returned +9.8%, so IVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IVV or SCHH?
IVV charges 0.03% a year and SCHH charges 0.07%, so IVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IVV and SCHH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of IVV and 74% of SCHH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources