TRFM vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TRFM (AAM Transformers ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TRFM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Pence Transformers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TRFM returned 29.94%/yr vs 22.08%/yr for SCHG. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TRFM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

TRFM vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TRFM achieves a 26.82% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 1.23% return.

TRFM

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 3.37%
• YTD: 26.82%
• 6M: 24.89%
• 1Y: 43.37%
• 3Y*: 29.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SCHG

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -4.04%
• YTD: 1.23%
• 6M: -0.27%
• 1Y: 16.03%
• 3Y*: 22.08%
• 5Y*: 13.26%
• 10Y*: 18.63%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TRFM vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	26.82%	25.76%	19.96%	44.71%	-9.92%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	1.23%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-7.25%

Correlation

The correlation between TRFM and SCHG is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2022	0.87

The correlation between TRFM and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

TRFM vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TRFM	SCHG
Technology	53.3%	46.7%
Consumer Cyclical	17.7%	12.4%
Communication Services	12.3%	15.3%
Industrials	7.2%	6.0%
Energy	3.5%	0.7%
Financial Services	2.8%	6.6%
Utilities	1.7%	0.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.3%
Healthcare	0.2%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.6%
Real Estate	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

TRFM vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRFM

TRFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
TRFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
TRFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
TRFM Omega Ratio Rank: 55
TRFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
TRFM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 27
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 28
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

TRFM vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) 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.

	TRFM	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.00	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	1.42	+0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.18	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.36	0.98	+2.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.85	3.19	+7.66

TRFM vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRFM Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRFM and SCHG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

TRFM vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRFM drawdown since its inception was -28.40%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRFM and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TRFM	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.40%	-34.59%	+6.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.99%	-16.41%	+3.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.40%	-23.39%	-5.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.59%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.87%	-6.57%	+2.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.58%	-5.20%	-1.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.01%	5.03%	-1.02%

Volatility

TRFM vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) has a higher volatility of 11.26% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 5.90%. This indicates that TRFM'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.

Volatility by Period

	TRFM	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.26%	5.90%	+5.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.61%	12.46%	+7.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.43%	16.21%	+8.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.26%	22.38%	+4.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.26%	21.58%	+5.68%

TRFM vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRFM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

TRFM vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

TRFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, 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%
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	0.13%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TRFM and SCHG in my portfolio?

TRFM and SCHG have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TRFM or SCHG?

TRFM has higher volatility (11.26%) compared to SCHG (5.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TRFM dropped -28.40% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, TRFM or SCHG?

On 3-year performance, TRFM leads with 29.94% vs 22.08% for SCHG. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TRFM or SCHG?

Over the 3-year period, TRFM has performed better with a 29.94% return vs 22.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TRFM or SCHG?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for TRFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TRFM or SCHG?

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.13% for TRFM.

What is the main difference between TRFM and SCHG?

TRFM is categorized as Technology Equities, while SCHG is Large Cap Growth Equities. TRFM tracks Pence Transformers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while SCHG tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. They also come from different issuers: AAM and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for TRFM and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TRFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.00), 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.