PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SCHV vs. IWP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SCHV vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCHV achieves a 14.24% return, which is significantly higher than IWP's 1.66% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHV has underperformed IWP with an annualized return of 11.38%, while IWP has yielded a comparatively higher 12.22% annualized return.


SCHV

1D
0.45%
1M
3.06%
YTD
14.24%
6M
15.31%
1Y
26.78%
3Y*
18.05%
5Y*
10.33%
10Y*
11.38%

IWP

1D
-0.06%
1M
1.28%
YTD
1.66%
6M
0.18%
1Y
2.82%
3Y*
15.01%
5Y*
5.99%
10Y*
12.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SCHV vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SCHV
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
14.24%16.02%14.13%8.93%-7.65%25.58%2.64%25.92%-7.30%16.56%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
1.66%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-4.89%24.93%

Correlation

The correlation between SCHV and IWP is 0.70, 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

0.70

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

0.74

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

0.77

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

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2009

0.80

The correlation between SCHV and IWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

SCHV vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SCHV
IWP

Financial Services

19.6%
6.9%

Technology

18.2%
20.0%

Industrials

14.0%
24.2%

Healthcare

11.3%
13.5%

Consumer Defensive

8.8%
1.5%

Energy

7.2%
3.8%

Consumer Cyclical

6.9%
21.1%

Utilities

4.6%
2.9%

Real Estate

4.1%
1.4%

Basic Materials

2.8%
0.4%

Communication Services

2.5%
4.2%

Financial Services

SCHV
19.6%
IWP
6.9%

Technology

SCHV
18.2%
IWP
20.0%

Industrials

SCHV
14.0%
IWP
24.2%

Healthcare

SCHV
11.3%
IWP
13.5%

Consumer Defensive

SCHV
8.8%
IWP
1.5%

Energy

SCHV
7.2%
IWP
3.8%

Consumer Cyclical

SCHV
6.9%
IWP
21.1%

Utilities

SCHV
4.6%
IWP
2.9%

Real Estate

SCHV
4.1%
IWP
1.4%

Basic Materials

SCHV
2.8%
IWP
0.4%

Communication Services

SCHV
2.5%
IWP
4.2%

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

SCHV vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCHV
SCHV Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
SCHV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHV Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHV Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHV Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHV Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
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.

SCHV vs. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). 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.


SCHVIWPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.04

+0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.94

0.19

+3.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.87

0.56

+15.32

SCHV vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHV Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCHV and IWP, 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


SCHVIWPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.50

0.17

+2.33

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

0.27

+0.44

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.67

0.57

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.71

0.42

+0.29

Drawdowns

SCHV vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCHV drawdown since its inception was -37.08%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHV and IWP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SCHVIWPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.08%

-56.92%

+19.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.83%

-14.79%

+7.96%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.26%

-25.20%

+9.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.78%

-38.62%

+18.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.08%

-38.62%

+1.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.49%

-4.08%

+2.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.83%

-9.68%

+5.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.69%

5.08%

-3.39%

Volatility

SCHV vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) is 3.33%, while iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a volatility of 4.62%. This indicates that SCHV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SCHVIWPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.33%

4.62%

-1.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.37%

12.93%

-4.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.80%

16.71%

-5.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.53%

22.34%

-7.81%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.95%

21.70%

-4.75%

SCHV vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCHV has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than IWP's 0.23% 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

SCHV vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison

SCHV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.78%, more than IWP's 0.33% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.33%0.37%0.40%0.54%0.77%0.30%0.38%0.59%1.02%0.78%1.16%0.98%
SCHV
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
1.78%2.02%2.25%2.42%2.37%1.93%3.03%3.02%3.05%2.37%2.65%2.69%

Frequently Asked Questions


SCHV and IWP have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWP has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to SCHV (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHV dropped -37.08% vs IWP's -56.92%.

On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 12.22% vs 11.38% for SCHV. On fees, SCHV is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHV has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWP has performed better with a 12.22% return vs 11.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SCHV is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

SCHV has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

SCHV is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while IWP is Mid Cap Growth Equities. SCHV tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index, while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for SCHV and 0.23% for IWP.

SCHV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 0.17), 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 SCHV and IWP

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