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 XOVR: how they differ

SCHG and XOVR hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and SCHG returned more over the year.

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHG and XOVR hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHG and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGXOVR
NVIDIA Corp11.02%9.48%
Alphabet Inc4.76%6.53%
Meta Platforms Inc3.46%4.47%
Tesla Inc3.92%1.63%
AppLovin Corp0.58%3.95%
Arista Networks Inc0.57%2.31%
Palantir Technologies Inc1.25%0.56%
Monolithic Power Systems Inc0.27%1.77%
Robinhood Markets Inc0.26%3.56%
Rocket Lab Corp0.24%2.50%
DoorDash Inc0.21%2.04%
Astera Labs Inc0.16%7.75%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in XOVR
Apple Inc 9.84%Roku Inc 2.16%
Microsoft Corp 7.18%Exelixis Inc 1.89%
Amazon.com Inc 5.68%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
Broadcom Inc 4.55%Pegasystems Inc 1.56%
Alphabet Inc 3.78%Globus Medical Inc 1.35%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.06%Ubiquiti Inc 0.92%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.94%N/A 0.05%
Visa Inc 1.92%

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 XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabERShares
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+12.7%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%43.4%
Holdings19332

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%.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so SCHG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or XOVR?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHG-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources