POWA vs SCHX
Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF vs Schwab US Large-Cap ETF
Which is better, POWA or SCHX?
SCHX has been ahead.
SCHX has a lower expense ratio. SCHX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. POWA is less concentrated, with 22.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.9%.
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 | POWA | SCHX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.40% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $162M | $75.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.98% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 106 | 752 |
| YTD Return | -0.75% | +13.08%Best |
| 1Y Return | -0.04% | +16.62%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.97% | +22.27%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.65% | +12.56%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.3%Best | 14.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -36.5% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,798 | $18,068Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.9%Best | 36.9% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2006 | Nov 3, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 3, 2009 to Oct 14, 2026 (16.9 years).
POWA vs SCHX 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 16.9 years both funds cover.
POWA vs SCHX Performance
Invesco Bloomberg Pricing Power ETF (POWA) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Schwab US Large-Cap ETF (SCHX) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year POWA returned -0.04% while SCHX returned +16.62%. Year to date, POWA is down 0.75% versus a gain of 13.08% for SCHX.
Over three years, POWA compounded at +10.97% per year against +22.27% for SCHX; over five years the annualized figures are +6.65% and +12.56% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, SCHX has the edge at +13.05% annualized vs +11.18%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.5% compared with 12.3% for POWA. 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 -36.5% for POWA and -34.3% for SCHX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
POWA charges 0.40% per year while SCHX charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $40 vs $3 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, POWA currently yields 0.98% against 1.04% for SCHX.
Holdings Overlap
97.6% of POWA's money is in holdings SCHX also owns. 10.5% of SCHX's money is in holdings POWA also owns.
Most of POWA is already inside SCHX. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
49 positions in common, counted across the 51 positions we hold weights for in POWA and 752 in SCHX, against full books of 106 and 752.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 680 positions for SCHX that do not appear in our book for POWA (88.7% of the fund), and 2 for POWA that do not appear in SCHX (2.4%).
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 POWA | Weight in SCHX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.26% | 5.44% | 3.18% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 2.34% | 0.38% | 1.96% |
| KEYSKeysight Technologies Inc. | 2.55% | 0.09% | 2.46% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 2.04% | 0.58% | 1.46% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 1.93% | 0.66% | 1.27% |
| MCKMckesson Corp. | 2.24% | 0.15% | 2.09% |
| NXPINxp Semiconductors Nv Sedol B505Pn7 | 2.29% | 0.09% | 2.20% |
| SNXSynnex Corp | 2.34% | 0.03% | 2.31% |
| ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc. | 2.09% | 0.20% | 1.89% |
| AMEAmetek Inc | 2.19% | 0.08% | 2.11% |
97.6% of POWA is already inside SCHX.
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, POWA or SCHX?
POWA has an expense ratio of 0.40% while SCHX charges 0.03%. SCHX is the cheaper option, by $37 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, POWA or SCHX?
Over the past year POWA returned -0.04% vs +16.62% for SCHX, so SCHX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), POWA annualized +11.18% vs +13.05% for SCHX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, POWA or SCHX?
SCHX has been the more volatile fund at 14.5% annualized versus 12.3% for POWA. Worst drawdown: POWA -36.5% vs SCHX -34.3%.
Should I hold both POWA and SCHX?
POWA and SCHX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, 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 POWA and SCHX?
97.6% of POWA's money is in holdings SCHX also owns. 10.5% of SCHX's is in holdings POWA also owns. They hold 49 positions in common, counted across the 51 positions we hold weights for in POWA and 752 in SCHX.
Which pays a higher dividend, POWA or SCHX?
POWA yields 0.98% while SCHX yields 1.04%, so SCHX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHX better than POWA?
SCHX has a lower expense ratio. SCHX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. POWA is less concentrated, with 22.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.