PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SCHG vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCHG achieves a 4.93% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.37% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHG has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 18.26%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 6.94% annualized return.


SCHG

1D
-0.09%
1M
0.84%
6M
5.77%
YTD
4.93%
1Y
15.31%
3Y*
21.96%
5Y*
13.32%
10Y*
18.26%
ALL TIME*
16.37%

ACWV

1D
-0.03%
1M
2.00%
6M
2.51%
YTD
3.37%
1Y
5.99%
3Y*
9.33%
5Y*
5.45%
10Y*
6.94%
ALL TIME*
8.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SCHG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
4.93%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
3.37%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 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.32

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

0.39

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

0.55

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

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2011

0.68

Over the past year, the correlation between SCHG and ACWV has dropped to 0.32 - well below their long-term average of 0.68, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

SCHG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SCHG
ACWV

Technology

44.0%
25.3%

Communication Services

14.1%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
5.3%

Healthcare

9.9%
13.8%

Financial Services

7.7%
13.5%

Industrials

7.6%
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

1.9%
9.7%

Basic Materials

1.6%
1.5%

Energy

0.9%
3.5%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.6%

Utilities

0.5%
7.5%

Technology

SCHG
44.0%
ACWV
25.3%

Communication Services

SCHG
14.1%
ACWV
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

SCHG
11.2%
ACWV
5.3%

Healthcare

SCHG
9.9%
ACWV
13.8%

Financial Services

SCHG
7.7%
ACWV
13.5%

Industrials

SCHG
7.6%
ACWV
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

SCHG
1.9%
ACWV
9.7%

Basic Materials

SCHG
1.6%
ACWV
1.5%

Energy

SCHG
0.9%
ACWV
3.5%

Real Estate

SCHG
0.6%
ACWV
0.6%

Utilities

SCHG
0.5%
ACWV
7.5%

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

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: 3030
Overall Rank
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
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.

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.

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.


SCHGACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.14

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.94

0.94

-0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.00

2.68

+0.31

SCHG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHG Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. 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.


Loading charts...

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.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SCHGACWVDifference

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

-3.16%

-1.96%

-1.20%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.19%

-3.11%

-2.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.12%

2.24%

+2.88%

Volatility

SCHG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) has a higher volatility of 4.47% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.99%. 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SCHGACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.47%

2.99%

+1.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.82%

6.26%

+6.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.43%

8.03%

+8.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.40%

10.28%

+12.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.57%

12.29%

+9.28%

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 0.39%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
1.94%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
0.39%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


SCHG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SCHG has higher volatility (4.47%) compared to ACWV (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHG dropped -34.59% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

On 10-year performance, SCHG leads with 18.26% vs 6.94% for ACWV. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 18.26% return vs 6.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.39% for SCHG.

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

SCHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs 0.75), 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 SCHG and ACWV

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