LTPZ vs. SCHP
LTPZ (PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF) and SCHP (Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF) are both Inflation-Protected Bonds funds - LTPZ tracks the ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y) while SCHP tracks the Bloomberg US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Index (Series-L). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LTPZ returned -0.01%/yr vs 2.44%/yr for SCHP. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LTPZ charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCHP.
Performance
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LTPZ achieves a -2.71% return, which is significantly lower than SCHP's 0.73% return. Over the past 10 years, LTPZ has underperformed SCHP with an annualized return of -0.01%, while SCHP has yielded a comparatively higher 2.44% annualized return.
LTPZ
- 1D
- -0.41%
- 1M
- -2.86%
- 6M
- -3.24%
- YTD
- -2.71%
- 1Y
- -0.83%
- 3Y*
- -2.44%
- 5Y*
- -6.96%
- 10Y*
- -0.01%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.86%
SCHP
- 1D
- -0.15%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- 6M
- 0.58%
- YTD
- 0.73%
- 1Y
- 2.39%
- 3Y*
- 3.59%
- 5Y*
- 0.48%
- 10Y*
- 2.44%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.74%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5.93M | $5.42M | $6.65M | |
| $89.96M | $108.43M | $109.03M |
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF | -2.71% | 4.00% | -4.80% | 0.96% | -31.71% | 7.02% | 24.89% | 17.47% | -7.22% | 9.07% |
SCHP Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF | 0.73% | 6.76% | 1.95% | 3.91% | -12.02% | 5.87% | 10.86% | 8.52% | -1.78% | 3.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between LTPZ and SCHP is 0.88, 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 | 0.88 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2010 | 0.91 |
The correlation between LTPZ and SCHP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
LTPZ vs. SCHP — Risk / Return Rank
LTPZ
SCHP
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) and Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF (SCHP). 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.
| LTPZ | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.81 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.12 | -0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.12 | 1.24 | -1.36 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.23 | 3.53 | -3.75 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LTPZ drawdown since its inception was -40.99%, which is greater than SCHP's maximum drawdown of -14.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LTPZ and SCHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LTPZ | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -40.99% | -14.26% | -26.73% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.10% | -1.93% | -5.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.93% | -4.48% | -11.45% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.99% | -14.26% | -26.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.99% | -14.26% | -26.73% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.83% | -1.11% | -33.72% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.57% | -3.91% | -8.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.65% | 0.68% | +2.97% |
Volatility
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Volatility Comparison
PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) has a higher volatility of 2.70% compared to Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF (SCHP) at 0.84%. This indicates that LTPZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LTPZ | SCHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.70% | 0.84% | +1.86% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.79% | 2.44% | +4.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.16% | 3.35% | +5.81% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.86% | 6.11% | +9.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.04% | 5.59% | +9.45% |
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
LTPZ has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHP's 0.03% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
LTPZ vs. SCHP - Dividend Comparison
LTPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.29%, more than SCHP's 4.50% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF | 6.29% | 4.64% | 3.71% | 3.71% | 8.38% | 3.56% | 1.42% | 1.74% | 3.05% | 2.25% | 2.32% | 0.71% |
SCHP Schwab U.S. TIPS ETF | 4.50% | 4.06% | 2.99% | 3.02% | 7.19% | 4.39% | 1.11% | 2.02% | 2.26% | 1.90% | 1.38% | 0.28% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LTPZ and SCHP have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LTPZ has higher volatility (2.70%) compared to SCHP (0.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LTPZ dropped -40.99% vs SCHP's -14.26%.
On 10-year performance, SCHP leads with 2.44% vs -0.01% for LTPZ. On fees, SCHP is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, SCHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SCHP has performed better with a 2.44% return vs -0.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHP is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for LTPZ.
LTPZ has the higher dividend yield at 6.29%, compared with 4.50% for SCHP.
LTPZ tracks ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y), while SCHP tracks Bloomberg US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Index (Series-L). They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LTPZ and 0.03% for SCHP.
SCHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.72 vs -0.09), 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.
Find the right allocation for LTPZ and SCHP
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