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

RDVY vs SCHG: how they differ

RDVY and SCHG hold 18% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and SCHG hold 18% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions RDVY and SCHG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingRDVYSCHG
ALPHABET INC2.12%4.76%
NVIDIA CORP1.91%11.02%
VISA INC1.82%1.92%
META PLATFORMS INC1.50%3.46%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP1.73%1.48%
MICROSOFT CORP1.45%7.18%
APPLE INC1.44%9.84%
MASTERCARD INC1.19%1.41%
GE AEROSPACE2.13%1.19%
GE VERNOVA INC2.80%0.91%
KLA CORP4.14%0.88%
SALESFORCE INC1.30%0.62%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in RDVYOnly in SCHG
APPLIED MATERIALS INC 4.69%Amazon.com Inc 5.68%
LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42%Broadcom Inc 4.55%
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15%Tesla Inc 3.92%
WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12%Alphabet Inc 3.78%
ROSS STORES INC 2.01%Eli Lilly & Co 3.06%
ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.94%
TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00%Netflix Inc 1.27%
SNAP-ON INC 2.00%Palantir Technologies Inc 1.25%

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.

RDVY and SCHG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFirst TrustSchwab
What it isFirst Rising Dividend AchieversU.S. Large-Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+22.0%+12.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.5 pts−4.8 pts
Expense ratio0.47%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50094.4%95.4%
Holdings71193

RDVY in plain words

RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 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, RDVY or SCHG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and SCHG returned +12.7%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, RDVY or SCHG?
RDVY charges 0.47% a year and SCHG charges 0.04%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do RDVY and SCHG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 95% of SCHG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 18% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources