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

SCHX vs USMV: how they differ

SCHX and USMV hold 31% of their weight in the same names, and SCHX returned more over the year.

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHX and USMV hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHX and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHXUSMV
NVIDIA Corp7.51%1.64%
Microsoft Corp4.89%1.56%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc1.27%1.42%
Exxon Mobil Corp0.89%1.60%
Apple Inc6.71%0.82%
Visa Inc0.80%0.94%
Johnson & Johnson0.80%1.44%
Walmart Inc0.74%0.88%
Cisco Systems Inc0.70%1.81%
Eli Lilly & Co1.28%0.66%
Mastercard Inc0.59%1.15%
AbbVie Inc0.56%0.63%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHXOnly in USMV
Alphabet Inc 3.24%Chubb Limited 1.50%
Tesla Inc 1.79%WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC. 1.28%
JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.18%ACCENTURE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.75%
Intel Corp 0.79%LINDE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.69%
Caterpillar Inc 0.60%TE CONNECTIVITY PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.59%
Lam Research Corp 0.58%ARCH CAPITAL GROUP LTD. 0.50%
Bank of America Corp 0.50%AON PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.43%
General Electric Co 0.50%MercadoLibre, Inc. 0.34%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

SCHX and USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabiShares
What it isU.S. Large-CapMSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+16.8%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.7 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50094.9%94.8%
Holdings748170

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% 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. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHX or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHX returned +16.8% and USMV returned +6.6%, so SCHX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHX or USMV?
SCHX charges 0.03% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHX and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHX and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources