GGRW vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

GGRW (Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GGRW is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GGRW returned 8.03%/yr vs 13.03%/yr for SCHG. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GGRW charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

GGRW vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGRW achieves a 4.00% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 0.23% return.

GGRW

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: -1.82%
• YTD: 4.00%
• 6M: 2.91%
• 1Y: 12.08%
• 3Y*: 25.73%
• 5Y*: 8.03%
• 10Y*: —

SCHG

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: -5.54%
• YTD: 0.23%
• 6M: -1.26%
• 1Y: 14.41%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 13.03%
• 10Y*: 18.78%

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

GGRW vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	4.00%	18.29%	41.78%	42.19%	-43.92%	5.40%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.23%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-31.80%	20.35%

Correlation

The correlation between GGRW and SCHG is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2021	0.93

The correlation between GGRW and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

GGRW vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GGRW	SCHG
Technology	38.0%	46.7%
Communication Services	13.5%	15.3%
Industrials	11.8%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	12.4%
Financial Services	9.5%	6.6%
Healthcare	7.8%	8.4%
Utilities	4.3%	0.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	1.6%
Energy	-	0.7%
Real Estate	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

GGRW vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGRW

GGRW Risk / Return Rank: 23
GGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
GGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
GGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 22
GGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
GGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 27

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 25
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

GGRW vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.

	GGRW	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.78	0.89	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.15	1.29	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.16	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.92	0.88	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.41	2.86	+0.55

GGRW vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is comparable to the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGRW and SCHG, 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

GGRW vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGRW drawdown since its inception was -50.28%, which is greater than SCHG's maximum drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRW and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGRW	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.28%	-34.59%	-15.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.19%	-16.41%	+3.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.53%	-23.39%	+2.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.28%	-34.59%	-15.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.06%	-7.50%	+4.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.20%	-5.20%	-12.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.55%	5.05%	-1.50%

Volatility

GGRW vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) has a higher volatility of 6.23% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 5.91%. This indicates that GGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GGRW	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.23%	5.91%	+0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.64%	12.49%	+0.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.63%	16.18%	-0.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.43%	22.39%	+3.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.48%	21.58%	+3.90%

GGRW vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGRW has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

GGRW vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

GGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, more than SCHG's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	0.41%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.40%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GGRW and SCHG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, GGRW and SCHG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, GGRW or SCHG?

GGRW has higher volatility (6.23%) compared to SCHG (5.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGRW dropped -50.28% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, GGRW or SCHG?

On 5-year performance, SCHG leads with 13.03% vs 8.03% for GGRW. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GGRW or SCHG?

Over the 5-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 13.03% return vs 8.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGRW or SCHG?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for GGRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GGRW or SCHG?

GGRW has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.40% for SCHG.

What is the main difference between GGRW and SCHG?

They also come from different issuers: GAMCO Investors, Inc. and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for GGRW and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.89 vs 0.78), 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.