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 SCHX: how they differ

RDVY and SCHX hold 21% 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 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and SCHX hold 21% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions RDVY and SCHX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingRDVYSCHX
ALPHABET INC2.12%3.24%
NVIDIA CORP1.91%7.51%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC1.83%1.60%
META PLATFORMS INC1.50%2.02%
MICROSOFT CORP1.45%4.89%
APPLE INC1.44%6.71%
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY1.91%1.18%
VISA INC1.82%0.80%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP1.73%0.62%
MASTERCARD INC1.19%0.59%
LAM RESEARCH CORP4.42%0.58%
APPLIED MATERIALS INC4.69%0.52%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in RDVYOnly in SCHX
CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97%Amazon.com Inc 3.87%
MUELLER INDUSTRIES INC 1.93%Broadcom Inc 3.10%
ACCENTURE PLC 1.00%Alphabet Inc 2.58%
EVEREST GROUP LTD 0.54%Tesla Inc 1.79%
ALLISON TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS INC 0.40%Eli Lilly & Co 1.28%
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PLC 0.39%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.27%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.23%
Exxon Mobil Corp 0.89%

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 SCHX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFirst TrustSchwab
What it isFirst Rising Dividend AchieversU.S. Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+22.0%+16.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.5 pts−0.7 pts
Expense ratio0.47%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50094.4%94.9%
Holdings71748

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.

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% 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 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, RDVY or SCHX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and SCHX returned +16.8%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, RDVY or SCHX?
RDVY charges 0.47% a year and SCHX charges 0.03%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do RDVY and SCHX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 95% of SCHX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 21% 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 SCHX, 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 SCHX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/RDVY-SCHX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources