FEUS vs SCHK
Northern Trust ESG & Climate US Large Cap Core ETF vs Schwab 1000 Index ETF
Which is better, FEUS or SCHK?
Nearly the same fund. SCHK costs less.
SCHK has a lower expense ratio. FEUS led over 1Y, SCHK over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. SCHK is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.7%.
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 | FEUS | SCHK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.09% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $128M | $5.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.00% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 132 | 986 |
| YTD Return | +14.43%Best | +13.20% |
| 1Y Return | +18.43%Best | +16.85% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.62% | +22.21%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.92% | +12.41%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9% | 15.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -25.3%Best | -25.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,561 | $17,948Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 40.7% | 36.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Northern Trust Asset Management | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 20, 2021 | Oct 11, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 21, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.1 years).
FEUS vs SCHK 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 5.1 years both funds cover.
FEUS vs SCHK Performance
Northern Trust ESG & Climate US Large Cap Core ETF (FEUS) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management and Schwab 1000 Index ETF (SCHK) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year FEUS returned +18.43% while SCHK returned +16.85%. Year to date, FEUS is up 14.43% versus a gain of 13.20% for SCHK.
Over three years, FEUS compounded at +20.62% per year against +22.21% for SCHK; over five years the annualized figures are +11.92% and +12.41% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FEUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.9% compared with 15.8% for SCHK. 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 -25.3% for FEUS and -25.4% for SCHK. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FEUS charges 0.09% per year while SCHK charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $9 vs $3 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FEUS currently yields 1.00% against 1.04% for SCHK.
Holdings Overlap
98.2% of FEUS's money is in holdings SCHK also owns. 59.3% of SCHK's money is in holdings FEUS also owns.
Most of FEUS is already inside SCHK. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
126 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in FEUS and 998 in SCHK, against full books of 132 and 986.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 826 positions for SCHK that do not appear in our book for FEUS (39.8% of the fund), and 1 for FEUS that do not appear in SCHK (0.5%).
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 FEUS | Weight in SCHK | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.52% | 7.83% | 0.69% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.22% | 6.74% | 0.48% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.09% | 5.32% | 0.77% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.09% | 3.42% | 0.67% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.56% | 2.79% | 0.77% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.97% | 2.24% | 0.73% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.28% | 2.22% | 0.06% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.31% | 1.45% | 0.86% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.39% | 2.34% | 0.95% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.99% | 1.22% | 0.77% |
98.2% of FEUS is already inside SCHK.
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, FEUS or SCHK?
FEUS has an expense ratio of 0.09% while SCHK charges 0.03%. SCHK is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FEUS or SCHK?
Over the past year FEUS returned +18.43% vs +16.85% for SCHK, so FEUS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FEUS or SCHK?
FEUS has been the more volatile fund at 15.9% annualized versus 15.8% for SCHK. Worst drawdown: FEUS -25.3% vs SCHK -25.4%.
Should I hold both FEUS and SCHK?
FEUS and SCHK have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FEUS and SCHK?
98.2% of FEUS's money is in holdings SCHK also owns. 59.3% of SCHK's is in holdings FEUS also owns. They hold 126 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in FEUS and 998 in SCHK.
Which pays a higher dividend, FEUS or SCHK?
FEUS yields 1.00% while SCHK yields 1.04%, so SCHK currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHK better than FEUS?
SCHK has a lower expense ratio. FEUS led over 1Y, SCHK over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. SCHK is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.