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 XAR: how they differ

Over the year SCHG returned more, +12.7% against +11.8%, and SCHG charges 0.04% against 0.35%.

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Aerospace & Defense ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHG and XAR hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHG and XAR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGXAR
General Electric Co1.19%3.04%
TransDigm Group Inc0.25%2.78%
Rocket Lab Corp0.24%1.76%
Axon Enterprise Inc0.12%3.20%
HEICO Corp0.12%2.91%
Curtiss-Wright Corp0.10%2.33%
Carpenter Technology Corp0.08%2.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in XAR
NVIDIA Corp 11.02%RTX CORP 3.34%
Apple Inc 9.84%VSE CORP 3.33%
Microsoft Corp 7.18%ATI INC 3.25%
Amazon.com Inc 5.68%ARCHER AVIATION INC A 3.23%
Alphabet Inc 4.76%GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 3.11%
Broadcom Inc 4.55%LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP 3.02%
Tesla Inc 3.92%HEXCEL CORP 2.93%
Alphabet Inc 3.78%BOEING CO/THE 2.93%

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 May 31, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.

SCHG and XAR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
XAR
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Aerospace & Defense ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundThematic ETF
IssuerSchwabState Street
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthDefense
Total return, 1 year+12.7%+11.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts−5.7 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%35.0%
Holdings19349

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%.

XAR in plain words

By weight, 35% of XAR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 98%. The top ten holdings are 31% of the fund across 49 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +11.8% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 5.7 pts. It sits 17.1% below its all-time high of Aug 14, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or XAR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and XAR returned +11.8%, so SCHG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or XAR?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and XAR charges 0.35%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and XAR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 35% of XAR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Are SCHG and XAR the same kind of fund?
No. SCHG is an index ETF and XAR is a thematic ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources