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

Performance

SCHG vs. IWM - 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 Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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 2.58% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 19.22% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHG has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 18.50%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.27% annualized return.


SCHG

1D
0.12%
1M
-2.62%
YTD
2.58%
6M
2.96%
1Y
18.71%
3Y*
22.68%
5Y*
14.33%
10Y*
18.50%

IWM

1D
0.87%
1M
3.64%
YTD
19.22%
6M
16.00%
1Y
39.16%
3Y*
17.23%
5Y*
6.07%
10Y*
11.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SCHG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
2.58%17.50%34.95%50.10%-31.80%28.11%39.14%36.02%-1.36%28.05%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
19.22%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between SCHG and IWM is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.66

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

0.64

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

0.72

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

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2009

0.78

The correlation between SCHG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (3 years) to 0.78 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SCHG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SCHG
IWM

Technology

46.3%
19.5%

Communication Services

16.0%
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
7.9%

Healthcare

7.7%
16.1%

Financial Services

6.7%
15.6%

Industrials

5.8%
17.2%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
2.1%

Basic Materials

1.4%
4.5%

Energy

0.8%
5.8%

Real Estate

0.5%
5.6%

Utilities

0.4%
3.0%

Technology

SCHG
46.3%
IWM
19.5%

Communication Services

SCHG
16.0%
IWM
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

SCHG
12.7%
IWM
7.9%

Healthcare

SCHG
7.7%
IWM
16.1%

Financial Services

SCHG
6.7%
IWM
15.6%

Industrials

SCHG
5.8%
IWM
17.2%

Consumer Defensive

SCHG
1.7%
IWM
2.1%

Basic Materials

SCHG
1.4%
IWM
4.5%

Energy

SCHG
0.8%
IWM
5.8%

Real Estate

SCHG
0.5%
IWM
5.6%

Utilities

SCHG
0.4%
IWM
3.0%

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. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCHG
SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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. IWM - 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 Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.


SCHGIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.82

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.33

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.14

3.57

-2.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.78

12.63

-8.85

SCHG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHG Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCHG and IWM, 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. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCHG drawdown since its inception was -34.59%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHG and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SCHGIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.59%

-59.05%

+24.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.41%

-11.03%

-5.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.39%

-27.50%

+4.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.59%

-31.91%

-2.68%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.59%

-41.13%

+6.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.33%

0.00%

-5.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.20%

-10.76%

+5.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.96%

3.12%

+1.84%

Volatility

SCHG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) is 5.14%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.16%. This indicates that SCHG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SCHGIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.14%

7.16%

-2.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.30%

14.29%

-1.99%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.95%

19.73%

-3.78%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.33%

22.61%

-0.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.58%

23.08%

-1.50%

SCHG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCHG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% 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. IWM - Dividend Comparison

SCHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than IWM's 0.87% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
0.87%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
0.38%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 IWM have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (7.16%) compared to SCHG (5.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHG dropped -34.59% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, SCHG leads with 18.50% vs 11.27% for IWM. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.14%. 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 18.50% return vs 11.27%. 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 0.19% for IWM.

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.38% for SCHG.

SCHG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. SCHG tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for SCHG and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.18), 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 IWM

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