QLV vs SCHK
Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF vs Schwab 1000 Index ETF
Which is better, QLV or SCHK?
SCHK has been ahead.
SCHK has a lower expense ratio. SCHK led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. SCHK is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%.
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 | QLV | SCHK |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $171M | $5.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.50% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 125 | 986 |
| YTD Return | +13.30%Best | +13.20% |
| 1Y Return | +14.01% | +16.85%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.91% | +22.21%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.85% | +12.41%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.6%Best | 16.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.0%Best | -34.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,737 | $17,948Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.8% | 36.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Northern Trust Asset Management | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 15, 2019 | Oct 11, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (7.2 years).
QLV 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 7.2 years both funds cover.
QLV vs SCHK Performance
Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) 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 QLV returned +14.01% while SCHK returned +16.85%. Year to date, QLV is up 13.30% versus a gain of 13.20% for SCHK.
Over three years, QLV compounded at +16.91% per year against +22.21% for SCHK; over five years the annualized figures are +10.85% and +12.41% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, SCHK has the edge at +14.68% annualized vs +11.51%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHK has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.8% compared with 13.6% for QLV. 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 -34.0% for QLV and -34.8% 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QLV charges 0.08% per year while SCHK charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $3 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QLV currently yields 1.50% against 1.04% for SCHK.
Holdings Overlap
88.0% of QLV's money is in holdings SCHK also owns. 53.0% of SCHK's money is in holdings QLV also owns.
Most of QLV is already inside SCHK. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
101 positions in common, counted across the 120 positions we hold weights for in QLV and 998 in SCHK, against full books of 125 and 986.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 853 positions for SCHK that do not appear in our book for QLV (46.1% of the fund), and 13 for QLV that do not appear in SCHK (8.7%).
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 QLV | Weight in SCHK | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 6.86% | 7.83% | 0.97% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.09% | 6.74% | 0.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 6.58% | 5.32% | 1.26% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.46% | 3.42% | 0.96% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 4.25% | 0.85% | 3.40% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 1.94% | 2.79% | 0.85% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.81% | 2.34% | 0.53% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 1.47% | 2.24% | 0.77% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 2.38% | 0.93% | 1.45% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.04% | 2.22% | 1.18% |
88.0% of QLV 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, QLV or SCHK?
QLV has an expense ratio of 0.08% while SCHK charges 0.03%. SCHK is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QLV or SCHK?
Over the past year QLV returned +14.01% vs +16.85% for SCHK, so SCHK leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), QLV annualized +11.51% vs +14.68% for SCHK. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QLV or SCHK?
SCHK has been the more volatile fund at 16.8% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: QLV -34.0% vs SCHK -34.8%.
Should I hold both QLV and SCHK?
QLV and SCHK have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 QLV and SCHK?
88.0% of QLV's money is in holdings SCHK also owns. 53.0% of SCHK's is in holdings QLV also owns. They hold 101 positions in common, counted across the 120 positions we hold weights for in QLV and 998 in SCHK.
Which pays a higher dividend, QLV or SCHK?
QLV yields 1.50% while SCHK yields 1.04%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHK better than QLV?
SCHK has a lower expense ratio. SCHK led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. SCHK is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.