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 XLV: how they differ

SCHG and XLV hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and XLV returned more over the year.

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHG and XLV hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHG and XLV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGXLV
Eli Lilly & Co3.06%16.56%
UnitedHealth Group Inc1.20%6.59%
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc0.65%3.25%
Intuitive Surgical Inc0.53%2.46%
Danaher Corp0.40%2.10%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc0.40%2.20%
McKesson Corp0.32%1.59%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc0.22%1.09%
IDEXX Laboratories Inc0.16%0.72%
Waters Corp0.13%0.64%
Humana Inc0.13%0.83%
IQVIA Holdings Inc0.11%0.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in XLV
NVIDIA Corp 11.02%Johnson & Johnson 10.67%
Apple Inc 9.84%AbbVie Inc 7.76%
Microsoft Corp 7.18%Merck & Co Inc 5.54%
Amazon.com Inc 5.68%Amgen Inc 3.41%
Alphabet Inc 4.76%Abbott Laboratories 2.76%
Broadcom Inc 4.55%Gilead Sciences Inc 2.74%
Tesla Inc 3.92%Pfizer Inc 2.40%
Alphabet Inc 3.78%CVS Health Corp 2.30%

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.

SCHG and XLV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
XLV
State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabState Street
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthHealth care
Total return, 1 year+12.7%+20.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts+2.9 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%100.0%
Holdings19359

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%.

XLV in plain words

XLV is an index equity fund tracking the Health care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 59 positions, with the top ten at 61.7%. It sat 5.9% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or XLV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and XLV returned +20.4%, so XLV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or XLV?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% 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 XLV, 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 XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHG-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources