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

SCHG vs USMV: how they differ

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

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions SCHG and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGUSMV
NVIDIA Corp11.02%1.64%
Microsoft Corp7.18%1.56%
Mastercard Inc1.41%1.15%
Visa Inc1.92%0.94%
Apple Inc9.84%0.82%
Eli Lilly & Co3.06%0.66%
Salesforce Inc0.62%0.88%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc2.94%0.53%
Palo Alto Networks Inc0.80%0.53%
Arista Networks Inc0.57%0.52%
Broadcom Inc4.55%0.50%
Palantir Technologies Inc1.25%0.50%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in USMV
Alphabet Inc 4.76%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.81%
Tesla Inc 3.92%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%
General Electric Co 1.19%DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%
KLA Corp 0.88%THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%
Linde PLC 0.81%AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.51%
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 0.65%Chubb Limited 1.50%
Walt Disney Co/The 0.63%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49%
Intuitive Surgical Inc 0.53%WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 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.

SCHG and USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabiShares
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthMSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+12.7%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%94.8%
Holdings193170

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%.

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, SCHG or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and USMV returned +6.6%, so SCHG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or USMV?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 95% of USMV 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources