Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
SCHP vs TLT: how they differ
SCHP and TLT are both bond index funds, and over the year SCHP returned more, −0.8% against −6.4%.
Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.
| SCHP Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF | TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Schwab | iShares |
| What it is | US TIPS | 20+ year Treasuries |
| Total return, 1 year | −0.8% | −6.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −18.4 pts | −23.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 48 | not filed |
SCHP in plain words
SCHP is a bond fund tracking the US TIPS. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year.
TLT in plain words
TLT is a bond fund tracking the 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.9% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, SCHP or TLT?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHP returned −0.8% and TLT returned −6.4%, so SCHP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, SCHP or TLT?
- SCHP charges 0.03% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so SCHP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, SCHP against TLT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHP-TLT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources