SCHV vs IWM: Complete Comparison

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF โ€” overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
0.43%
Very Low Overlap
Shared Holdings
6 of 514
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

SCHV
IWM
0.4%
SCHV Only
Overlap
IWM Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

SCHV Return
+6.58%
IWM Return
+12.41%
Winner
IWM
+5.82%
Max Drawdown
SCHV: -3.9%
IWM: -8.5%
SCHV Volatility (annualized)9.76%
IWM Volatility (annualized)19.30%

๐Ÿ“ˆ Comparison

Metric
SCHV
IWM
1 Year Return
+19.8%โœ“
+18.5%
3 Year Return
+7.5%โœ“
+4.2%
5 Year Return
+12.2%โœ“
+10.5%
Volatility
17.50%โœ“
24.80%
Expense Ratio
0.04%โœ“
0.19%
โš ๏ธ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

โš ๏ธRisk Metrics

Metric
SCHV
IWM
Volatility
17.50%โœ“
24.80%
Sharpe Ratio
0.65โœ“
0.38
Sortino Ratio
0.88โœ“
0.52
Max Drawdown
-35.80%โœ“
-41.50%
Beta
0.88
1.25

Interpretation:

  • ๐Ÿ“Š Lower volatility = smoother ride
  • โšก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
  • โš ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
  • ๐Ÿ“ˆ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500

โš”๏ธ Comparison

7 - 10

๐Ÿ† IWM wins this comparison

Key Factors

๐Ÿ’ฐ Expense Ratio
SCHV:0.04%โœ“
vs
IWM:0.19%โœ“
๐ŸŽฏ Number of Holdings
SCHV:550 holdingsโœ“
vs
IWM:1,983 holdingsโœ“
๐Ÿ“ˆ 5-Year Return
SCHV:+12.2%
vs
IWM:+10.5%
โ–ถAdditional Metrics (5)
โš–๏ธ Concentration Risk
SCHV: 18.4% in top 10
IWM: 5.3% in top 10โœ“
๐Ÿ“Š Assets Under Management
SCHV: $15B
IWM: $60B โœ“โœ“
โšก Sharpe Ratio
SCHV: 0.65โœ“
IWM: 0.38
๐Ÿ“‰ Volatility
SCHV: 17.5%โœ“
IWM: 24.8%
๐Ÿ” Uniqueness vs SPY
SCHV: 68.1% unique
IWM: 100.0% uniqueโœ“

Bottom line: IWM wins with better number of holdings. Consider IWM for your portfolio, but SCHV is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

6 shared holdings representing 0.4% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockSCHV WeightIWM WeightOverlap
1
BE
BE
0.09%0.80%0.09%
2
FN
FN
0.07%0.62%0.07%
3
IONQ
IONQ
0.06%0.51%0.06%
4
KTOS
KTOS
0.05%0.44%0.05%
5
AVAV
AVAV
0.03%0.31%0.03%
6
JOBY
JOBY
0.03%0.24%0.03%

Overlap by Sector

Other
6 stocks ยท 0.33% overlap

Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution

6
Shared Stocks
0.4%
Total Overlap
1
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in SCHV

Unique to SCHV

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
BRK-BBRK-B3.31%
JPMJPM3.04%
WMTWMT1.86%
XOMXOM1.85%
JNJJNJ1.77%

Top Holdings Only in IWM

Unique to IWM

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
CRDOCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP HOLDING LTD0.86%
NXTNEXTPOWER INC CLASS A0.44%
SATSECHOSTAR CORP CLASS A0.43%
GHGUARDANT HEALTH INC0.42%
RMBSRAMBUS INC0.39%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).

Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.

๐Ÿ“Š This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Want deeper analysis on SCHV or IWM?

Complement your EigenDex analysis with these research tools.

Some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support EigenDex as a free tool. We only recommend tools we believe provide genuine value to investors.

Compare More ETFs