SCHQ vs ZHOG
Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF vs F/m Opportunistic Income ETF
Which is better, SCHQ or ZHOG?
ZHOG has been ahead.
SCHQ has a lower expense ratio. ZHOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.
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 | SCHQ | ZHOG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.43% |
| AUM | $963M | $46M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.16% | 5.57% |
| Holdings | 102 | 63 |
| YTD Return | -5.74% | -0.33%Best |
| 1Y Return | -7.97% | +0.89%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.08% | +6.86%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -7.27% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.2% | 5.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -14.1% | -3.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $9,877 | $11,924Best |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | F-m investments |
| Category | Fixed Income | Fixed Income |
| Style | Long Term Government Bond | Long Term Government Bond |
| Inception | Oct 10, 2019 | Sep 6, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 6, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
SCHQ vs ZHOG 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 3.1 years both funds cover.
SCHQ vs ZHOG Performance
Schwab Long-Term US Treasury ETF (SCHQ) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and F/m Opportunistic Income ETF (ZHOG) is an ETF from F-m investments. Over the past year SCHQ returned -7.97% while ZHOG returned +0.89%. Year to date, SCHQ is down 5.74% versus a loss of 0.33% for ZHOG.
Over three years, SCHQ compounded at +2.08% per year against +6.86% for ZHOG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.2% compared with 5.1% for ZHOG. 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 -14.1% for SCHQ and -3.7% for ZHOG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHQ charges 0.03% per year while ZHOG charges 0.43%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $43 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SCHQ currently yields 5.16% against 5.57% for ZHOG.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of SCHQ and ZHOG you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, SCHQ or ZHOG?
SCHQ has an expense ratio of 0.03% while ZHOG charges 0.43%. SCHQ is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SCHQ or ZHOG?
Over the past year SCHQ returned -7.97% vs +0.89% for ZHOG, so ZHOG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHQ or ZHOG?
SCHQ has been the more volatile fund at 12.2% annualized versus 5.1% for ZHOG. Worst drawdown: SCHQ -14.1% vs ZHOG -3.7%.
Should I hold both SCHQ and ZHOG?
SCHQ and ZHOG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHQ or ZHOG?
SCHQ yields 5.16% while ZHOG yields 5.57%, so ZHOG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZHOG better than SCHQ?
SCHQ has a lower expense ratio. ZHOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.