SCHG vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SCHG returned 18.53%/yr vs 7.26%/yr for ACWV. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SCHG charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

SCHG vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCHG achieves a 3.75% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 1.59% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHG has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 18.53%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.26% annualized return.

SCHG

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.94%
• YTD: 3.75%
• 6M: 2.93%
• 1Y: 20.82%
• 3Y*: 24.03%
• 5Y*: 14.90%
• 10Y*: 18.53%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.50%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 9.71%
• 5Y*: 5.30%
• 10Y*: 7.26%

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

SCHG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	3.75%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-31.80%	28.11%	39.14%	36.02%	-1.36%	28.05%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.59%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between SCHG and ACWV is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2011	0.69

Over the past year, the correlation between SCHG and ACWV has dropped to 0.37 - well below their long-term average of 0.69, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

SCHG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SCHG	ACWV
Technology	46.3%	22.6%
Communication Services	16.0%	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	5.1%
Healthcare	7.7%	13.2%
Financial Services	6.7%	13.1%
Industrials	5.8%	7.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	10.3%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.8%
Energy	0.8%	3.4%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.8%
Utilities	0.4%	7.8%

Return for Risk

SCHG vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 36
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 17
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 16
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

SCHG vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	SCHG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	0.50	+0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.82	0.74	+1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.09	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.27	0.61	+0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.25	1.87	+2.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SCHG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCHG and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SCHG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33	0.50	+0.83
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67	0.52	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86	0.59	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	0.70	+0.13

Drawdowns

SCHG vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCHG drawdown since its inception was -34.59%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHG and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	SCHG	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.59%	-28.82%	-5.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.41%	-6.37%	-10.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.39%	-7.56%	-15.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.59%	-18.14%	-16.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.59%	-28.82%	-5.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.25%	-3.64%	-0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.20%	-3.11%	-2.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.91%	2.06%	+2.85%

Volatility

SCHG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) has a higher volatility of 4.52% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.09%. This indicates that SCHG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SCHG	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.52%	2.09%	+2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.02%	5.66%	+6.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.77%	7.79%	+7.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.31%	10.24%	+12.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.58%	12.31%	+9.27%

SCHG vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCHG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

SCHG vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

SCHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than ACWV's 2.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.05%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.37%	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 SCHG and ACWV in my portfolio?

SCHG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SCHG or ACWV?

SCHG has higher volatility (4.52%) compared to ACWV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHG dropped -34.59% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, SCHG or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, SCHG leads with 18.53% vs 7.26% for ACWV. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SCHG or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 18.53% return vs 7.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SCHG or ACWV?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 0.37% for SCHG.

What is the main difference between SCHG and ACWV?

SCHG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. SCHG tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for SCHG and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs 0.50), 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.