PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SCHA vs. RZG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SCHA vs. RZG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCHA achieves a 19.79% return, which is significantly higher than RZG's 18.15% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHA has outperformed RZG with an annualized return of 11.13%, while RZG has yielded a comparatively lower 9.65% annualized return.


SCHA

1D
-0.58%
1M
4.77%
YTD
19.79%
6M
19.32%
1Y
40.27%
3Y*
18.92%
5Y*
7.13%
10Y*
11.13%

RZG

1D
-0.14%
1M
-0.10%
YTD
18.15%
6M
16.98%
1Y
30.70%
3Y*
17.12%
5Y*
4.85%
10Y*
9.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SCHA vs. RZG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SCHA
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
19.79%11.60%11.16%18.46%-19.81%16.45%19.34%26.50%-11.79%14.94%
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
18.15%10.22%9.84%19.15%-29.00%21.01%17.76%14.25%-8.70%19.18%

Correlation

The correlation between SCHA and RZG is 0.93, 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

0.93

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.94

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2009

0.93

The correlation between SCHA and RZG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

SCHA vs. RZG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SCHA
RZG

Technology

23.3%
16.8%

Financial Services

15.7%
15.0%

Industrials

15.4%
18.2%

Healthcare

13.5%
22.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.0%
8.8%

Real Estate

6.0%
7.6%

Energy

5.5%
3.0%

Basic Materials

4.2%
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
5.9%

Communication Services

2.4%
1.9%

Utilities

2.3%
0.4%

Technology

SCHA
23.3%
RZG
16.8%

Financial Services

SCHA
15.7%
RZG
15.0%

Industrials

SCHA
15.4%
RZG
18.2%

Healthcare

SCHA
13.5%
RZG
22.0%

Consumer Cyclical

SCHA
9.0%
RZG
8.8%

Real Estate

SCHA
6.0%
RZG
7.6%

Energy

SCHA
5.5%
RZG
3.0%

Basic Materials

SCHA
4.2%
RZG
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

SCHA
2.6%
RZG
5.9%

Communication Services

SCHA
2.4%
RZG
1.9%

Utilities

SCHA
2.3%
RZG
0.4%

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

SCHA vs. RZG — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCHA
SCHA Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
SCHA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHA Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHA Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHA Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

RZG
RZG Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

SCHA vs. RZG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). 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.


SCHARZGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.29

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.26

3.58

+0.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.66

11.94

+3.71

SCHA vs. RZG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHA Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is higher than the RZG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCHA and RZG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


SCHARZGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.25

1.66

+0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.33

0.21

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

0.39

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.57

0.37

+0.20

Drawdowns

SCHA vs. RZG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCHA drawdown since its inception was -42.41%, smaller than the maximum RZG drawdown of -58.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHA and RZG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SCHARZGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.41%

-58.52%

+16.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-8.63%

-0.87%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.29%

-25.73%

-1.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.79%

-38.33%

+7.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.41%

-54.02%

+11.61%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.58%

-1.92%

+1.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.58%

-12.13%

+4.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.58%

2.58%

0.00%

Volatility

SCHA vs. RZG - Volatility Comparison

Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (SCHA) has a higher volatility of 5.08% compared to Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) at 4.68%. This indicates that SCHA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RZG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SCHARZGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.08%

4.68%

+0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.83%

13.57%

-0.74%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.01%

18.57%

-0.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.93%

22.97%

-1.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.71%

24.64%

-1.93%

SCHA vs. RZG - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCHA has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than RZG's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

SCHA vs. RZG - Dividend Comparison

SCHA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, more than RZG's 0.42% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
0.42%0.37%0.95%1.43%1.59%0.22%0.49%0.70%0.46%0.44%0.65%0.70%
SCHA
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
1.00%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


With a correlation of 0.93, SCHA and RZG 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.

SCHA has higher volatility (5.08%) compared to RZG (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHA dropped -42.41% vs RZG's -58.52%.

On 10-year performance, SCHA leads with 11.13% vs 9.65% for RZG. On fees, SCHA is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SCHA has performed better with a 11.13% return vs 9.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SCHA is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZG.

SCHA has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.42% for RZG.

SCHA tracks Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Total Return Index, while RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for SCHA and 0.35% for RZG.

SCHA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.66), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SCHA and RZG

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