LTPZ vs. SCHQ
Compare and contrast key facts about PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) and Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ).
LTPZ and SCHQ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LTPZ is a passively managed fund by PIMCO that tracks the performance of the ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y). It was launched on Sep 3, 2009. SCHQ is a passively managed fund by Charles Schwab that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg US Aggregate Government - Treasury - Long. It was launched on Oct 10, 2019. Both LTPZ and SCHQ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: LTPZ or SCHQ.
Key characteristics
| LTPZ | SCHQ | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 0.90% | -2.28% |
| 1Y Return | 9.75% | 10.32% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -11.98% | -11.09% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -1.20% | -4.24% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.53 | 0.58 |
| Sortino Ratio | 0.83 | 0.91 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.10 | 1.11 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.19 | 0.19 |
| Martin Ratio | 1.74 | 1.52 |
| Ulcer Index | 4.10% | 5.26% |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.56% | 13.73% |
| Max Drawdown | -40.99% | -46.13% |
| Current Drawdown | -31.73% | -37.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between LTPZ and SCHQ is 0.80, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, LTPZ achieves a 0.90% return, which is significantly higher than SCHQ's -2.28% return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
LTPZ has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHQ's 0.05% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) and Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ). 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.
Dividends
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Dividend Comparison
LTPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.37%, less than SCHQ's 4.37% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF | 3.37% | 3.71% | 8.38% | 3.56% | 1.42% | 1.74% | 3.80% | 2.25% | 2.32% | 0.71% | 1.77% | 1.28% |
SCHQ Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF | 4.37% | 3.79% | 2.88% | 1.69% | 1.52% | 0.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LTPZ drawdown since its inception was -40.99%, smaller than the maximum SCHQ drawdown of -46.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LTPZ and SCHQ. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LTPZ vs. SCHQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PIMCO 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) is 4.09%, while Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that LTPZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.