Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
SCHB vs USMV: how they differ
SCHB and USMV are both equity index funds, and over the year SCHB returned more, +17.2% against +6.6%.
Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.
| SCHB Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF | USMV iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Schwab | iShares |
| What it is | US broad market, book from ITOT | MSCI USA Min Vol Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.2% | +6.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −0.3 pts | −10.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.15% |
| Holdings | not filed | 170 |
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.
USMV in plain words
USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, SCHB or USMV?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHB returned +17.2% and USMV returned +6.6%, 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, SCHB against USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHB-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources