BUL vs. SCHM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BUL (Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF) and SCHM (Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - BUL tracks the Pacer US Cash Cows Growth Index while SCHM tracks the Dow Jones US Total Stock Market Mid-Cap. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BUL returned 10.16%/yr vs 8.08%/yr for SCHM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHM.

Performance

BUL vs. SCHM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) and Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF (SCHM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUL achieves a 5.63% return, which is significantly lower than SCHM's 19.11% return.

BUL

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 0.64%
• YTD: 5.63%
• 6M: 3.35%
• 1Y: 22.35%
• 3Y*: 21.12%
• 5Y*: 10.16%
• 10Y*: —

SCHM

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: 2.88%
• YTD: 19.11%
• 6M: 16.97%
• 1Y: 31.33%
• 3Y*: 17.85%
• 5Y*: 8.08%
• 10Y*: 11.71%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BUL vs. SCHM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	5.63%	19.18%	27.39%	3.68%	-16.18%	32.48%	27.26%	4.81%
SCHM Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF	19.11%	10.17%	11.98%	16.69%	-17.07%	19.36%	15.26%	7.18%

Correlation

The correlation between BUL and SCHM is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 3, 2019	0.85

The correlation between BUL and SCHM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

BUL vs. SCHM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUL	SCHM
Technology	33.2%	22.1%
Consumer Cyclical	20.9%	10.8%
Healthcare	20.7%	10.9%
Industrials	12.1%	21.7%
Basic Materials	5.5%	4.7%
Energy	4.5%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	3.4%
Communication Services	1.4%	2.6%
Financial Services	-	10.9%
Real Estate	-	6.4%
Utilities	-	2.9%

Return for Risk

BUL vs. SCHM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BUL

BUL Risk / Return Rank: 45
BUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
BUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
BUL Omega Ratio Rank: 37
BUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
BUL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

SCHM

SCHM Risk / Return Rank: 64
SCHM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SCHM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
SCHM Omega Ratio Rank: 56
SCHM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
SCHM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BUL vs. SCHM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) and Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF (SCHM). 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.

	BUL	SCHM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	1.93	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	2.72	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.34	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	3.38	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.90	13.48	-4.58

BUL vs. SCHM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the SCHM Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUL and SCHM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BUL vs. SCHM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUL drawdown since its inception was -37.08%, smaller than the maximum SCHM drawdown of -42.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUL and SCHM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUL	SCHM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.08%	-42.43%	+5.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.93%	-9.32%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.55%	-23.27%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.85%	-26.46%	-1.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.58%	-1.73%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.61%	-5.64%	-1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	2.33%	+0.19%

Volatility

BUL vs. SCHM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF (BUL) is 5.38%, while Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF (SCHM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that BUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCHM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUL	SCHM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.38%	5.75%	-0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.54%	12.61%	-0.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.11%	16.30%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.88%	19.67%	+2.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.22%	20.49%	+3.73%

BUL vs. SCHM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHM's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUL vs. SCHM - Dividend Comparison

BUL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%, less than SCHM's 1.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BUL Pacer US Cash Cows Growth ETF	0.22%	0.28%	0.30%	2.11%	0.67%	0.08%	0.69%	0.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCHM Schwab US Mid-Cap ETF	1.22%	1.46%	1.43%	1.50%	1.67%	1.13%	1.31%	1.48%	1.56%	1.27%	1.51%	1.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUL and SCHM in my portfolio?

BUL and SCHM have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUL or SCHM?

SCHM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to BUL (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUL dropped -37.08% vs SCHM's -42.43%.

Which ETF is better, BUL or SCHM?

On 5-year performance, BUL leads with 10.16% vs 8.08% for SCHM. On fees, SCHM is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, BUL has been the lower-risk option at 5.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUL or SCHM?

Over the 5-year period, BUL has performed better with a 10.16% return vs 8.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUL or SCHM?

SCHM is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BUL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUL or SCHM?

SCHM has the higher dividend yield at 1.22%, compared with 0.22% for BUL.

What is the main difference between BUL and SCHM?

BUL tracks Pacer US Cash Cows Growth Index, while SCHM tracks Dow Jones US Total Stock Market Mid-Cap. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BUL and 0.04% for SCHM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCHM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.31), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.