SCHZ vs. CMBS
SCHZ (Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF) and CMBS (iShares CMBS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SCHZ is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index, while CMBS is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund tracking the Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SCHZ returned 1.52%/yr vs 2.06%/yr for CMBS. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SCHZ charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for CMBS.
Performance
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SCHZ achieves a 0.30% return, which is significantly higher than CMBS's 0.14% return. Over the past 10 years, SCHZ has underperformed CMBS with an annualized return of 1.52%, while CMBS has yielded a comparatively higher 2.06% annualized return.
SCHZ
- 1D
- -0.17%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- YTD
- 0.30%
- 6M
- 0.15%
- 1Y
- 5.16%
- 3Y*
- 3.94%
- 5Y*
- 0.07%
- 10Y*
- 1.52%
CMBS
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- -0.05%
- YTD
- 0.14%
- 6M
- 0.28%
- 1Y
- 4.26%
- 3Y*
- 5.15%
- 5Y*
- 0.79%
- 10Y*
- 2.06%
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCHZ Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | 0.30% | 7.24% | 1.26% | 5.60% | -13.17% | -1.72% | 7.46% | 8.65% | -0.26% | 3.50% |
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 0.14% | 7.67% | 4.27% | 5.06% | -11.21% | -1.82% | 7.86% | 7.94% | 0.77% | 2.95% |
Correlation
The correlation between SCHZ and CMBS 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2012 | 0.51 |
The correlation between SCHZ and CMBS shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.65 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
SCHZ vs. CMBS — Risk / Return Rank
SCHZ
CMBS
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (SCHZ) and iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS). 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.
| SCHZ | CMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.20 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.92 | 1.76 | +0.16 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.87 | 4.90 | +0.98 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SCHZ | CMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.37 | 1.16 | +0.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.01 | 0.15 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 | 0.36 | -0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.44 | 0.43 | +0.01 |
Drawdowns
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SCHZ drawdown since its inception was -18.74%, which is greater than CMBS's maximum drawdown of -15.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHZ and CMBS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SCHZ | CMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.74% | -15.87% | -2.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.70% | -2.44% | -0.26% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.18% | -3.29% | -2.89% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.01% | -15.87% | -2.14% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -18.74% | -15.87% | -2.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.47% | -1.77% | -0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.68% | -2.95% | -0.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.88% | 0.87% | +0.01% |
Volatility
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Volatility Comparison
Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (SCHZ) has a higher volatility of 1.24% compared to iShares CMBS ETF (CMBS) at 1.11%. This indicates that SCHZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMBS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SCHZ | CMBS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.24% | 1.11% | +0.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.67% | 2.82% | -0.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.79% | 3.71% | +0.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.08% | 5.31% | +0.77% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.41% | 5.77% | -0.36% |
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Expense Ratio Comparison
SCHZ has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than CMBS's 0.25% 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
SCHZ vs. CMBS - Dividend Comparison
SCHZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, more than CMBS's 3.58% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMBS iShares CMBS ETF | 3.58% | 3.45% | 3.31% | 2.97% | 2.65% | 2.46% | 2.83% | 2.74% | 2.70% | 2.50% | 2.29% | 2.31% |
SCHZ Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | 4.12% | 4.05% | 3.96% | 3.28% | 2.63% | 2.16% | 2.43% | 2.79% | 2.56% | 2.40% | 2.24% | 2.11% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SCHZ and CMBS 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.
SCHZ has higher volatility (1.24%) compared to CMBS (1.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHZ dropped -18.74% vs CMBS's -15.87%.
On 10-year performance, CMBS leads with 2.06% vs 1.52% for SCHZ. On fees, SCHZ is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, CMBS has been the lower-risk option at 1.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CMBS has performed better with a 2.06% return vs 1.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHZ is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CMBS.
SCHZ has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 3.58% for CMBS.
SCHZ is categorized as Total Bond Market, while CMBS is Mortgage Backed Securities. SCHZ tracks Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index, while CMBS tracks Barclays Capital U.S. CMBS (ERISA Only) Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for SCHZ and 0.25% for CMBS.
SCHZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs 1.16), 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.
Find the right allocation for SCHZ and CMBS
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