What is the primary difference in expense ratios between IVW and SCHG, and how does this impact investors?

IVW has an expense ratio of 0.18%, while SCHG has a lower expense ratio of 0.04%. This means SCHG costs 0.14 percentage points less annually. Over time, lower fees can significantly impact net returns, as these costs are deducted from the fund's assets. Investors comparing these two should consider if the fee difference influences their overall cost efficiency when holding for the long term, assuming all else equal.

How do the index tracking methodologies differ between these ETFs?

Both IVW and SCHG have the index they track listed as not available in the provided data. Consequently, it is impossible to definitively explain their specific differences in tracking based solely on the fund data. An investor would need to consult the providers' websites for the full details of their respective indices and how they are constructed, as transparency is limited here.

Why is the overlap in the top 10 holdings between IVW and SCHG notable for investors?

The overlap in the top 10 holdings is significant because it indicates that both funds hold the same major US large-cap growth companies. This high correlation in holdings means their performance will likely be very similar, despite any differences in tracking methodologies. For an investor, this suggests that factors like fees or liquidity might be more important differentiators than the underlying assets themselves.

Does the fee structure of SCHG or IVW imply a better return potential?

The fee structure alone does not guarantee better return potential, but a lower expense ratio is a more predictable advantage to investors' net returns over time. SCHG, with its 0.04% expense ratio, incurs lower annual operating costs than IVW's 0.18%, meaning more of your capital remains invested before considering market returns. However, this cost saving must be balanced with other factors like tracking error and liquidity.

How does IVW's net assets size of $77.2 billion compare to SCHG's $65.9 billion in practical terms?

Both net assets figures—IVW's $77.2 billion and SCHG's $65.9 billion—represent substantial funds. A larger size typically suggests potentially better liquidity and tighter trading spreads. However, SCHG is also very large at $65.9 billion, so the difference between the two may be less significant for an individual investor than the difference between these funds and smaller ETFs. Both sizes support efficient trading for most users.

Given IVW's track record since May 2000 versus SCHG's inception in December 2009, how should an investor interpret this?

IVW provides a longer track record, covering multiple market cycles, while SCHG's shorter history may be sufficient for those who value its lower cost. An investor might consider IVW's longevity as evidence of stability, or prefer SCHG if they believe the expense difference outweighs the added history. This comparison does not suggest either fund is better, as the relevance of the longer history depends on the individual investor's time horizon.

How do the dividend yields of IVW (0.34%) and SCHG (0.36%) compare?

SCHG has a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.36% compared to IVW's 0.34%, but both yields are very low. Large Growth ETFs like these typically focus on capital appreciation rather than income. While a higher yield is generally positive, the difference here is marginal and should be considered secondary to other factors, as these funds are structured for growth, not dividend income generation.

How does concentration in top holdings like NVDA and AAPL affect both ETFs?

Both funds show significant exposure to tech-heavy holdings. IVW's top weight for NVDA is 14.80%, while SCHG's is 10.67%; AAPL is 9.94% in SCHG and 6.75% in IVW. This concentration means their returns will be heavily driven by the same large-cap growth leaders, making the choice between them less about different market exposures and more about cost and other structural features.

What does the 'not available' sector weight information mean for these funds?

The fact that sector weights are 'not available' in this data for both funds means that an investor cannot use this data set to perform a direct comparison of their specific industry allocations. For those who need to understand precise sector concentration to manage risk, they would need to consult other sources beyond this comparison, as transparency into this detail is currently missing.

Are there any other practical differences between IVW and SCHG not covered in the data?

Beyond the listed metrics like fees, assets and holdings, differences can include how dividends are processed or reinvested. For example, some funds automatically reinvest, others pay cash. Also, the trading liquidity and spreads can vary in practice. Investors should check the official fund provider pages to see if there are any specific operational features or minimums that might impact their practical experience.

What is the most important educational disclaimer when comparing these funds?

The most important educational disclaimer for this comparison is that it is purely for information, not a recommendation or financial advice. Past performance of either IVW or SCHG does not predict future results. This data is from a snapshot in time (Sept 2026) and can change, so all figures should be verified for current accuracy before considering any financial decisions.

What should investors know about sector weights being 'not available'?

When sector weights are 'not available', it means the fund data provided lacks the detailed breakdown of which industries these funds hold. This creates a blind spot; you cannot assess diversification across different market sectors. Investors would need to research the fund providers directly to understand sector concentration and determine how these funds fit into a broader portfolio strategy.

IVW vs SCHG

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare IVW (iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF) and SCHG (Schwab US Large-Cap Growth ETF) across fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking to understand their differences in large growth investing. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IVW

Metric

SCHG

0.18%

Expense Ratio

0.04%

0.34%

Dividend Yield

0.36%

$77.16B

Net Assets

$65.89B

155

Holdings

196

May 22, 2000

Inception Date

Dec 11, 2009

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Growth

Fund Category

Large Growth

SCHG costs about $14.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	IVW	SCHG
NVDANVIDIA Corporation	14.80%	10.67%
MSFTMicrosoft Corporation	10.09%	7.42%
AAPLApple Inc.	6.75%	9.94%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.	5.64%	4.09%
AVGOBroadcom Inc.	4.68%	3.30%
GOOGAlphabet Inc.	4.50%	3.26%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.	4.04%	3.01%
AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.	3.63%	4.93%

Discover More Comparisons

IVW vs VOOG

Compare IVW and VOOG on expense ratios, net assets, dividends, and top holdings. Review factual data for these Large Growth ETFs to inform further research.

IVW vs QQQ

Compare IVW vs QQQ on fees, holdings, dividends and tracking methods. Both Large Growth funds share a 0.18% expense ratio but differ in size and tech exposure.

IVW vs VUG

Compare IVW and VUG on fees, dividends and holdings. Note 0.18% versus 0.03% expense ratios. Review tracking and top stocks for large growth market.

Investment Analysis

IVW

Pros

IVW has long track record since inception May 2000, offering extensive performance history.
Net assets of $77.2 billion indicate substantial scale, potentially improving liquidity.
Top holdings include high-quality companies like NVDA and MSFT, reflecting strong growth exposure.

Considerations

Expense ratio of 0.18% is higher than many comparable large growth ETFs.
Index tracked not available, limiting transparency in methodology details.
Sector weights not available, obscuring potential concentration risks within the fund.

SCHG

Pros

Expense ratio of 0.04% provides very low-cost access to US large-cap growth.
Inception date December 11, 2009, still offers over a decade of track record.
Net assets of $65.9 billion ensure good liquidity and trading efficiency.

Considerations

Index tracked is not available, which limits insight into the specific methodology.
Top holdings are more concentrated in NVDA, AAPL, and MSFT compared to IVW.
Sector weights not available, making it difficult to assess detailed diversification within the fund.

Related Market Insights

Capital Returns: The Shareholder Yield Play

Explore Capital Returns, a Neme focused on companies rewarding shareholders via buybacks & dividends. Invest in robust firms like Schwab with Nemo's thematic baskets.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

Related Market Insights

Capital Returns: The Shareholder Yield Play

Explore Capital Returns, a Neme focused on companies rewarding shareholders via buybacks & dividends. Invest in robust firms like Schwab with Nemo's thematic baskets.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

About IVW and SCHG

IVW (IVW)

The iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF offers investors exposure to a curated selection of US large-cap companies that exhibit strong growth characteristics. Designed for those seeking capital appreciation, this fund focuses on businesses expected to achieve above-average revenue and earnings growth. With an inception date of May 22, 2000, it has a long history of tracking growth-oriented market segments. The fund holds approximately 155 assets, maintaining a relatively concentrated portfolio compared to broader market indices. Its expense ratio stands at 0.18%, providing a cost-effective way to access this specific factor. While it currently offers a modest dividend yield of 0.34%, the primary objective remains growth rather than income. Investors should note that while net assets are substantial at USD 77.16 billion, the value of these growth stocks can fluctuate significantly, and past performance does not guarantee future returns.

SCHG (SCHG)

SCHG (Schwab US Large‑Cap Growth ETF) is an exchange‑traded fund that offers investors low‑cost exposure to US large‑capitalisation companies exhibiting growth characteristics. It tracks a large‑cap growth index and typically holds companies with higher expected earnings growth, often leading to heavier weights in technology and other growth‑oriented sectors. As an ETF, SCHG provides intraday liquidity, diversification across dozens to hundreds of stocks and a transparent holdings profile. Costs are generally lower than many active funds, but investors should note that growth‑style funds can be more volatile than broad‑market or value strategies and that past performance is not a guide to future returns. SCHG can serve as a growth sleeve within a broader portfolio but may not suit investors seeking high income or very low volatility. This information is educational and not personalised advice; consider your risk tolerance, investment horizon and the role of style and geographic diversification before investing.

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Capital Returns: The Shareholder Yield Play

Following Charles Schwab's massive $20 billion stock buyback and dividend increase, this theme focuses on other financially robust companies that are similarly rewarding their investors. The strategy is to invest in firms with strong cash flows and a commitment to returning capital to shareholders.

Published: 25 July 2025

Explore Basket

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Capital Returns: The Shareholder Yield Play

Published: 25 July 2025

Explore Basket

Buy IVW or SCHG in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

IVW vs SCHG

Fund Snapshot