SCHV vs WBIF
Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF vs WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF
Which is better, SCHV or WBIF?
SCHV has been ahead.
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. SCHV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y 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 | SCHV | WBIF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04%Best | 1.65% |
| AUM | $15.4B | $23M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.88% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 560 | 152 |
| YTD Return | +15.04%Best | +14.87% |
| 1Y Return | +19.24%Best | +15.37% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.07%Best | +10.35% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.35%Best | +4.01% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7% | 12.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.1% | -20.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,363Best | $12,172 |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | WBI Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 11, 2009 | Aug 25, 2014 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 27, 2014 to Oct 14, 2026 (12.1 years).
SCHV vs WBIF 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 12.1 years both funds cover.
SCHV vs WBIF Performance
Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is an ETF from WBI Investments. Over the past year SCHV returned +19.24% while WBIF returned +15.37%. Year to date, SCHV is up 15.04% versus a gain of 14.87% for WBIF.
Over three years, SCHV compounded at +19.07% per year against +10.35% for WBIF; over five years the annualized figures are +10.35% and +4.01% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, SCHV has the edge at +8.41% annualized vs +3.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCHV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.7% compared with 12.1% for WBIF. 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 -37.1% for SCHV and -20.3% for WBIF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SCHV charges 0.04% per year while WBIF charges 1.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $165 annually, a gap of $161 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SCHV currently yields 1.88% against 0.00% for WBIF.
Holdings Overlap
At least 8.6% of SCHV's money is in holdings WBIF also owns.
Stated as a floor: for WBIF, our book for it covers 83.6% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
SCHV and WBIF share little of their money.
31 positions in common, counted across the 567 positions we hold weights for in SCHV and 62 in WBIF, against full books of 560 and 152.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in SCHV | Weight in WBIF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonmobil Holdings Corp Common Stock Usd | 2.28% | 1.51% | 0.77% |
| CVXChevron Corp. | 1.38% | 1.50% | 0.12% |
| HPQH P Inc. | 0.10% | 2.74% | 2.64% |
| ROSTRoss Stores, Inc. | 0.25% | 2.47% | 2.22% |
| COFCapital One Financial Corp. | 0.40% | 2.12% | 1.72% |
| BALLBall Corp. | 0.05% | 2.38% | 2.33% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 0.74% | 1.43% | 0.69% |
| ORCLOracle Corp. | 0.83% | 1.10% | 0.27% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing Inc. | 0.35% | 1.50% | 1.15% |
| ACNAccenture Plc | 0.41% | 1.26% | 0.85% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of SCHV and WBIF 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, SCHV or WBIF?
SCHV has an expense ratio of 0.04% while WBIF charges 1.65%. SCHV is the cheaper option, by $161 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SCHV or WBIF?
Over the past year SCHV returned +19.24% vs +15.37% for WBIF, so SCHV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), SCHV annualized +8.41% vs +3.90% for WBIF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SCHV or WBIF?
SCHV has been the more volatile fund at 14.7% annualized versus 12.1% for WBIF. Worst drawdown: SCHV -37.1% vs WBIF -20.3%.
Should I hold both SCHV and WBIF?
SCHV and WBIF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, 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 SCHV and WBIF?
At least 8.6% of SCHV's money is in holdings WBIF also owns. Our book for WBIF is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 31 positions in common, counted across the 567 positions we hold weights for in SCHV and 62 in WBIF.
Which pays a higher dividend, SCHV or WBIF?
SCHV yields 1.88% while WBIF yields 0.00%, so SCHV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is WBIF better than SCHV?
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. SCHV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.