Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
MTUM vs SCHG: how they differ
MTUM and SCHG hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and SCHG hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | MTUM | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 4.65% | 11.02% |
| BROADCOM INC. | 5.41% | 4.55% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.95% | 4.76% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 4.04% | 2.94% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.39% | 3.78% |
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. | 1.52% | 1.25% |
| GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY | 1.90% | 1.19% |
| GE VERNOVA INC. | 2.54% | 0.91% |
| KLA CORPORATION | 1.61% | 0.88% |
| APPLOVIN CORPORATION | 0.87% | 0.58% |
| ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. | 0.82% | 0.57% |
| QUANTA SERVICES, INC. | 0.46% | 0.37% |
| Only in MTUM | Only in SCHG |
|---|---|
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57% | Apple Inc 9.84% |
| INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% | Microsoft Corp 7.18% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% | Amazon.com Inc 5.68% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62% | Tesla Inc 3.92% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% | Meta Platforms Inc 3.46% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. 3.21% | Eli Lilly & Co 3.06% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87% | Visa Inc 1.92% |
| WALMART INC. 2.76% | Costco Wholesale Corp 1.48% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Schwab |
| What it is | MSCI USA Momentum Factor | U.S. Large-Cap Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.8% | +12.7% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.3 pts | −4.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.2% | 95.4% |
| Holdings | 125 | 193 |
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
SCHG in plain words
SCHG is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 193 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, MTUM or SCHG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +21.8% and SCHG returned +12.7%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, MTUM or SCHG?
- MTUM charges 0.15% a year and SCHG charges 0.04%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do MTUM and SCHG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 98% of MTUM and 95% of SCHG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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, MTUM against SCHG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MTUM-SCHG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources