ETF Comparison: Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) Versus Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV)

SCHG vs SCHV: Total cost of ownership

Both the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF

and the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF

SCHV

-0.16%

charge a 0.04% expense ratio, meaning investors pay just $4 per $10,000 invested. This is exceptionally low, especially for factor-based ETFs, but not surprising given that both are passive index-tracking funds.

Indirect costs are also minimal. SCHG has a 0.038% 30-day average bid-ask spread, while SCHV is slightly higher at 0.044%, but the difference is inconsequential for most investors.

Verdict: It’s a tie. Both ETFs are highly affordable to trade and own long-term.

SCHG vs SCHV: Methodology and holdings

This is where the differences between the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF

and the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF

SCHV

-0.16%

become night and day.

Both funds track different style components of the same parent index, the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index. SCHG follows the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, while SCHV tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index.

These indices use six factor criteria to select their holdings, including the projected price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, projected earnings growth, price-to-book (P/B) ratio, dividend yield, trailing revenue growth, and earnings growth.

From here, SCHG targets stocks scoring on the growth side of these factors, while SCHV selects stocks that rank on the value-heavy side.

In practice, this leads to very different sector allocations. SCHG is heavily weighted toward technology, with consumer discretionary as a distant second. SCHV, on the other hand, is more balanced between financials, industrials, and healthcare.

SCHG is also very top-heavy, reflecting the dominance of large-cap tech stocks. Its top 15 holdings account for 69.52% of the ETF, whereas SCHV’s top 15 only make up 24.4% of its portfolio.

Unsurprisingly, SCHG is dominated by the “Magnificent Seven”: Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Alphabet, and Tesla are all top holdings, with Microsoft and Apple alone accounting for over 22% of the ETF.

In contrast, SCHV has a more traditional, “boomer” portfolio, featuring Berkshire Hathaway, JPMorgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Home Depot, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson among its top ranks.

Verdict: Your mileage may vary (YMMV) here. My preference leans toward SCHV, as I’m more bullish on value stocks for the long term. However, if you want to double down on growth, SCHG hits all the big names.

SCHG vs SCHV: Risk and return

In the short term, SCHG has outperformed SCHV handily, which isn’t surprising given the tech surge in recent years. SCHG has beaten SCHV over the three-year and one-year trailing periods, but year-to-date in 2025, SCHG is struggling.

The Trump administration’s tariffs have hit growth stocks hard, while value stocks have held their ground. Despite the recent downturn, SCHG remains far more popular, attracting billions in inflows compared to the millions going into SCHV.

On the risk side, SCHG has also been more volatile, with higher standard deviations over the three-year, one-year, and year-to-date periods. The ETF has experienced deeper and more prolonged drawdowns, which is par for the course with growth investing. Investors should expect greater swings and more significant losses during market downturns if they choose SCHG.

Looking at the long-term performance, a backtest from December 11, 2009, to March 4, 2025, shows SCHG delivering a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.98%, significantly outpacing SCHV’s 10.73% CAGR. SCHG also had better risk-adjusted returns, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.8 compared to SCHV’s 0.63.

Verdict: As a value investor, it’s painful to admit, but SCHG wins clearly on this basis. A decade of falling interest rates and tech outperformance has given it significant tailwinds, leaving value strategies like SCHV in the dust.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not in any way constitute investment advice. The author may express their own opinions, which may not represent the opinions of ETF Central or its affiliated partners. It is essential that you seek advice from a registered financial professional prior to making any investment decisions.