AIMS vs. SCHA
AIMS (Acuitas Small Cap Active ETF) and SCHA (Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. AIMS is actively managed, while SCHA is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. AIMS charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHA.
Performance
AIMS vs. SCHA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
AIMS
- 1D
- -0.34%
- 1M
- -3.38%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
SCHA
- 1D
- -0.39%
- 1M
- -3.89%
- 6M
- 12.19%
- YTD
- 18.33%
- 1Y
- 34.29%
- 3Y*
- 15.08%
- 5Y*
- 7.26%
- 10Y*
- 10.65%
- ALL TIME*
- 12.36%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $44.61K | $54.43K | $71.07K | |
| $74.33M | $80.60M | $78.60M |
AIMS vs. SCHA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
AIMS Acuitas Small Cap Active ETF | 9.76% |
SCHA Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF | 8.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between AIMS and SCHA is 0.89, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2026 | 0.89 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
AIMS vs. SCHA — Risk / Return Rank
AIMS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
SCHA
AIMS vs. SCHA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Acuitas Small Cap Active ETF (AIMS) and Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| AIMS | SCHA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.28 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.37 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 10.77 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AIMS vs. SCHA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AIMS drawdown since its inception was -9.18%, smaller than the maximum SCHA drawdown of -42.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AIMS and SCHA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AIMS | SCHA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.18% | -42.41% | +33.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -9.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -27.29% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -30.79% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.41% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.44% | -7.11% | +1.67% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.64% | -7.54% | +4.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.97% | — |
Volatility
AIMS vs. SCHA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AIMS | SCHA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.74% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 14.70% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.32% | 19.29% | +0.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.32% | 22.06% | -2.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.32% | 22.77% | -3.45% |
AIMS vs. SCHA - Expense Ratio Comparison
AIMS has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHA's 0.04% expense ratio.
Dividends
AIMS vs. SCHA - Dividend Comparison
AIMS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SCHA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AIMS Acuitas Small Cap Active ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SCHA Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF | 1.07% | 1.26% | 1.51% | 1.42% | 1.37% | 1.19% | 1.05% | 1.39% | 1.58% | 1.24% | 1.50% | 1.48% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AIMS and SCHA have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SCHA is cheaper at 0.04% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SCHA is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for AIMS.
SCHA has the higher dividend yield at 1.07%, compared with 0.00% for AIMS.
They also come from different issuers: Acuitas Investments and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for AIMS and 0.04% for SCHA.
Find the right allocation for AIMS and SCHA
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer