Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
MINT vs SCHB: how they differ
MINT and SCHB are both equity index funds, and over the year SCHB returned more, +17.2% against +4.4%.
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund and Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF.
| MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund | SCHB Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | PIMCO | Schwab |
| What it is | Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Trad | US broad market, book from ITOT |
| Total return, 1 year | +4.4% | +17.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −13.1 pts | −0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | not published |
| Holdings | 977 | not filed |
MINT in plain words
MINT is an index equity fund tracking the Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Trad. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.36% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 10% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 977 positions, with the top ten at 14.1%.
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, MINT or SCHB?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MINT returned +4.4% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, MINT against SCHB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MINT-SCHB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources