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 XLY: how they differ

SCHG and XLY hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and SCHG returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHG and XLY hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHG and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGXLY
Amazon.com Inc5.68%22.24%
Tesla Inc3.92%19.66%
Booking Holdings Inc0.47%3.44%
Marriott International Inc/MD0.29%2.02%
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc0.27%1.87%
O'Reilly Automotive Inc0.26%1.90%
DoorDash Inc0.21%1.74%
Airbnb Inc0.20%1.49%
Carvana Co0.18%1.17%
AutoZone Inc0.17%1.31%
Carnival Corp Ltd0.13%0.92%
Ulta Beauty Inc0.08%0.49%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in XLY
NVIDIA Corp 11.02%Home Depot Inc/The 5.83%
Apple Inc 9.84%McDonald's Corp 4.16%
Microsoft Corp 7.18%TJX Cos Inc/The 3.93%
Alphabet Inc 4.76%Lowe's Cos Inc 3.08%
Broadcom Inc 4.55%Starbucks Corp 2.90%
Alphabet Inc 3.78%Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 1.97%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.46%General Motors Co 1.73%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.06%Ross Stores Inc 1.71%

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 XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabState Street
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthConsumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+12.7%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%100.0%
Holdings19347

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%.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% 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 47 positions, with the top ten at 69.2%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or XLY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and XLY returned −4.1%, so SCHG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or XLY?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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 XLY, 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 XLY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHG-XLY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources