ESGU vs SCHD
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF vs Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF
Which is better, ESGU or SCHD?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. ESGU led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. ESGU is less concentrated, with 37.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.6%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ESGU | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.06%Best |
| AUM | $18.2B | $111.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.93% | 3.24% |
| Holdings | 273 | 206 |
| YTD Return | +13.44% | +24.55%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.33% | +29.85%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.02%Best | +16.64% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.98%Best | +9.54% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.9% | -33.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,608Best | $15,771 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.7%Best | 41.6% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 1, 2016 | Oct 20, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 6, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.9 years).
ESGU vs SCHD growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 9.9 years both funds cover.
ESGU vs SCHD Performance
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year ESGU returned +17.33% while SCHD returned +29.85%. Year to date, ESGU is up 13.44% versus a gain of 24.55% for SCHD.
Over three years, ESGU compounded at +22.02% per year against +16.64% for SCHD; over five years the annualized figures are +11.98% and +9.54% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, ESGU has the edge at +14.35% annualized vs +11.27%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ESGU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 15.5% for SCHD. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -33.9% for ESGU and -33.4% for SCHD. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ESGU charges 0.15% per year while SCHD charges 0.06%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $6 annually, a gap of $9 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ESGU currently yields 0.93% against 3.24% for SCHD.
Holdings Overlap
7.0% of ESGU's money is in holdings SCHD also owns. 68.2% of SCHD's money is in holdings ESGU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
26 positions in common, counted across the 270 positions we hold weights for in ESGU and 98 in SCHD, against full books of 273 and 206.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 71 positions for SCHD that do not appear in our book for ESGU (31.5% of the fund), and 235 for ESGU that do not appear in SCHD (91.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ESGU | Weight in SCHD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.38% | 4.89% | 4.51% |
| QCOMQualcomm Inc. | 0.27% | 4.61% | 4.34% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.58% | 4.16% | 3.58% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.55% | 4.12% | 3.57% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.51% | 4.04% | 3.53% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.55% | 3.88% | 3.33% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.41% | 3.95% | 3.54% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 0.56% | 3.77% | 3.21% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.10% | 4.14% | 4.04% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 0.27% | 3.91% | 3.64% |
68.2% of SCHD is already inside ESGU.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ESGU or SCHD?
ESGU has an expense ratio of 0.15% while SCHD charges 0.06%. SCHD is the cheaper option, by $9 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ESGU or SCHD?
Over the past year ESGU returned +17.33% vs +29.85% for SCHD, so SCHD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ESGU annualized +14.35% vs +11.27% for SCHD. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ESGU or SCHD?
ESGU has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 15.5% for SCHD. Worst drawdown: ESGU -33.9% vs SCHD -33.4%.
Should I hold both ESGU and SCHD?
ESGU and SCHD have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ESGU and SCHD?
68.2% of SCHD's money is in holdings ESGU also owns. 68.2% of SCHD's is in holdings ESGU also owns. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 270 positions we hold weights for in ESGU and 98 in SCHD.
Which pays a higher dividend, ESGU or SCHD?
ESGU yields 0.93% while SCHD yields 3.24%, so SCHD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHD better than ESGU?
SCHD has a lower expense ratio. ESGU led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHD over 1Y. ESGU is less concentrated, with 37.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.