TMFM vs. SCHG
TMFM (Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFM is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. TMFM is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFM returned 1.83%/yr vs 21.39%/yr for SCHG. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TMFM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.
Performance
TMFM vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFM achieves a -5.79% return, which is significantly lower than SCHG's 4.99% return.
TMFM
- 1D
- 0.43%
- 1M
- -1.09%
- 6M
- -2.45%
- YTD
- -5.79%
- 1Y
- -14.17%
- 3Y*
- 1.83%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.04%
SCHG
- 1D
- 1.12%
- 1M
- 0.15%
- 6M
- 7.02%
- YTD
- 4.99%
- 1Y
- 16.16%
- 3Y*
- 21.39%
- 5Y*
- 13.15%
- 10Y*
- 18.27%
- ALL TIME*
- 16.34%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $247.66M | $249.87M | $339.91M | |
| $157.21K | $169.51K | $230.30K |
TMFM vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF | -5.79% | -8.98% | 17.54% | 21.81% | -27.36% | 1.91% |
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | 4.99% | 17.50% | 34.95% | 50.10% | -31.80% | -0.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFM and SCHG is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.46 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.54 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021 | 0.69 |
Over the past year, the correlation between TMFM and SCHG has dropped to 0.46 - well below their long-term average of 0.69, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
TMFM vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMFM
SCHG
Technology
Healthcare
Industrials
Financial Services
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Energy
-
Utilities
-
Technology
TMFM
SCHG
Healthcare
TMFM
SCHG
Industrials
TMFM
SCHG
Financial Services
TMFM
SCHG
Real Estate
TMFM
SCHG
Consumer Cyclical
TMFM
SCHG
Consumer Defensive
TMFM
SCHG
Basic Materials
TMFM
-
SCHG
Communication Services
TMFM
-
SCHG
Energy
TMFM
-
SCHG
Utilities
TMFM
-
SCHG
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
TMFM vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank
TMFM
SCHG
TMFM vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.
| TMFM | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.88 | 1.15 | -0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.62 | 0.83 | -1.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.07 | 2.62 | -3.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFM vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFM drawdown since its inception was -31.75%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFM and SCHG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFM | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.75% | -34.59% | +2.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.13% | -16.41% | -8.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.75% | -23.39% | -8.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -34.59% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -34.59% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.34% | -3.10% | -20.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.16% | -5.19% | -10.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.51% | 5.19% | +9.32% |
Volatility
TMFM vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison
Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) has a higher volatility of 6.01% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 4.32%. This indicates that TMFM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFM | SCHG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.01% | 4.32% | +1.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.23% | 12.90% | +3.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.69% | 16.67% | +3.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.60% | 22.42% | -1.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.60% | 21.59% | -0.99% |
TMFM vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFM vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison
TMFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than SCHG's 0.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 0.07% | 0.06% | 16.27% | 2.55% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFM and SCHG have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMFM has higher volatility (6.01%) compared to SCHG (4.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFM dropped -31.75% vs SCHG's -34.59%.
On 3-year performance, SCHG leads with 21.39% vs 1.83% for TMFM. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 4.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 21.39% return vs 1.83%. 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 0.85% for TMFM.
SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.07% for TMFM.
TMFM is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while SCHG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFM and 0.04% for SCHG.
SCHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.82 vs -0.80), 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 TMFM and SCHG
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