What does it mean that both funds are categorised as Small Blend ETFs?

Both IWM and SCHA are classified as Small Blend ETFs, meaning they invest in a mix of small-cap growth and value stocks. This blend aims to diversify exposure within the small-capitalisation segment of the US market. While they share this category, the specific stocks selected and the weighting can differ based on each fund's underlying index and methodology. Small Blend funds generally offer broader market exposure than pure growth or value strategies, reducing reliance on a single factor.

What are the key differences in net assets between IWM and SCHA?

Net assets, often referred to as assets under management (AUM), reflect the total market value of securities held by a fund. IWM has net assets of $77.2 billion, significantly larger than SCHA's $25.5 billion. Larger AUM can sometimes indicate greater liquidity and trading volume, potentially making it easier to buy or sell large positions without impacting the price. However, a smaller AUM does not necessarily imply lower efficiency, as long as the fund meets its tracking objectives.

How does inception date affect an investor's view of an ETF?

The inception date marks when a fund began operations. IWM was launched on May 22, 2000, giving it a long operational history, while SCHA started on November 3, 2009. A longer track record allows investors to see how the fund has performed across various market cycles over time. However, older funds may have legacy costs or methodologies, while newer funds like SCHA might benefit from updated structural efficiencies. Historical performance is informative but not a guarantee of future results.

How do the expense ratios of IWM and SCHA compare, and why does it matter?

IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19%, whereas SCHA is much lower at 0.03%. This means for every £1,000 invested, IWM costs £1.90 annually, while SCHA costs only £0.30. Over long periods, even small differences in fees can compound, impacting net returns. Lower-cost funds like SCHA can preserve more capital for investors, assuming similar tracking performance. It is crucial to weigh cost against other factors like liquidity and tracking accuracy when choosing between funds.

Which fund has a higher dividend yield, and what does this mean for income?

SCHA offers a dividend yield of 1.06%, slightly higher than IWM's 0.96%. For income-focused investors, a higher yield means more cash distributions per dollar invested, assuming the companies maintain their payouts. However, yields fluctuate with share prices and company decisions. A marginal difference may be less significant than total return factors like expense ratios and capital appreciation. Yield alone should not dictate investment decisions, as higher yields can sometimes correlate with higher volatility or lower growth potential.

Do these ETFs reinvest dividends automatically?

Most ETFs, including IWM and SCHA, pay dividends periodically (usually quarterly) to shareholders rather than reinvesting them automatically within the fund structure itself. Investors can choose to reinvest these distributions manually or via their brokerage platform if available. The decision to reinvest impacts compounding. Since the funds distribute cash, investors bear the responsibility of managing that income. Checking your brokerage account settings is essential to determine if automatic dividend reinvestment is enabled for your holdings.

How should an investor compare the top holdings of these two funds?

Comparing top holdings reveals differences in portfolio construction. IWM's largest holding is TWST at 0.36%, showing high diversification with no single stock exceeding 0.36%. In contrast, SCHA's top holding, SNDK, constitutes 5.18% of its portfolio. This indicates SCHA has greater concentration in its largest positions compared to IWM. Investors preferring broader, less concentrated exposure might analyse IWM's spread, while those comfortable with slight concentration risks might look at SCHA's specific holdings. No top-10 holdings are shared between the two lists.

What does the lack of sector weights availability mean for analysis?

For both IWM and SCHA, sector weights are not available in the provided data. Sector weights show how much of the fund is allocated to industries like technology, healthcare, or finance. Without this information, it is difficult to assess sector-specific risks or tilts. Investors relying on sector allocation to align with market views must seek additional data from the fund providers or other sources. The absence of this detail prevents a direct comparison of industry exposure between the two small-cap funds.

How do these funds handle index tracking methodology?

The index tracked by both IWM and SCHA is listed as not available in the provided data. Index tracking methodology dictates how the fund replicates its benchmark, whether through full replication or sampling. Without knowing the specific index or methodology, it is challenging to evaluate tracking precision or potential errors. Investors should consult official fund documentation to understand which benchmark each ETF targets and how deviations from that benchmark are managed, as this significantly influences long-term performance relative to the market.

Which fund is typically associated with low-cost indexing goals?

SCHA, with its 0.03% expense ratio, is often associated with investors prioritising minimum costs for long-term growth. IWM, at 0.19%, carries a higher fee but offers vast liquidity and a long track record since 2000. The choice depends on the investor's sensitivity to fees versus other attributes like trading volume or brand familiarity. For those strictly focused on reducing expense drags over decades, lower-fee options like SCHA are frequently compared against standard benchmark trackers.

Is the higher liquidity of IWM relevant for small investors?

IWM has $77.2 billion in net assets, indicating high liquidity, which is primarily advantageous for trading large blocks of shares efficiently. For smaller investors, both funds likely offer sufficient liquidity for standard trade sizes. Bid-ask spreads might be tighter for IWM due to its larger trading volume. However, SCHA also has substantial assets at $25.5 billion. Unless trading very large positions, the liquidity difference may be negligible for most retail investors compared to the impact of expense ratios.

What are the risks of comparing SCHA's concentration to IWM's diversification?

SCHA has a 5.18% concentration in its top holding (SNDK), whereas IWM's top holding is only 0.36% (TWST). This suggests SCHA carries more single-stock risk; if SNDK performs poorly, the fund's overall return could be significantly impacted. IWM's broader diversification mitigates this specific idiosyncratic risk. Investors must decide if the potential for higher returns from concentrated bets outweighs the risk of underperformance from a single stock, or if they prefer the steady, broad-market exposure represented by IWM's structure.

IWM vs SCHA

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

Compare IWM and SCHA, the iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Schwab US Small-Cap ETF. Explore differences in expense ratios, dividend yields, top holdings and how each fund tracks the small-cap market. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IWM

Metric

SCHA

0.19%

Expense Ratio

0.03%

0.96%

Dividend Yield

1.06%

$77.19B

Net Assets

$25.48B

1,990

Holdings

1,704

May 22, 2000

Inception Date

Nov 3, 2009

–

Index Tracked

–

Small Blend

Fund Category

Small Blend

SCHA costs about $16.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

IWM vs IWO

Compare IWM and IWO on fees, holdings and dividends. IWM has 0.19% expense ratio and 0.96% yield; IWO has 0.24% and 0.46%. Neutral analysis.

IWM vs VTWO

Compare IWM vs VTWO. VTWO has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% vs 0.19%. Check yields (1.13% vs 0.96%), net assets and shared top-10 holdings between funds.

IJR vs SCHA

Compare IJR and SCHA on fees, holdings, and dividends. IJR has 0.06% expenses and 1.23% yield; SCHA has 0.03% expenses and 1.06% yield with distinct top holds.

Investment Analysis

IWM

Pros

IWM offers exceptional liquidity with $77.2 billion in net assets, facilitating easy trading for large positions.
With an inception date of May 22, 2000, it benefits from a long operational track record for investors.
Its broad Small Blend category exposure provides wide diversification, evidenced by no top holding exceeding 0.36%.

Considerations

The 0.19% expense ratio is relatively high for a broad index fund compared to lower-cost alternatives.
A 0.96% dividend yield is low, potentially limiting income generation for yield-focused investors in this sector.
Index tracking methodology details are not available, reducing transparency for investors assessing the fund's core strategy.

SCHA

Pros

SCHA features a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.03%, enhancing net returns for cost-conscious investors over time.
Its 1.06% dividend yield provides modestly higher income potential compared to its Russell 2000 counterpart.
The fund's $25.5 billion in assets ensures sufficient scale and liquidity for most investor trading needs.

Considerations

A concentration risk exists in its top holding, SNDK, which represents a substantial 5.18% of the portfolio.
Inception in November 2009 means it has a shorter historical track record than funds dating back to 2000.
Specific index tracking details are not available, creating uncertainty regarding the precise methodology underpinning 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 IWM and SCHA

IWM (IWM)

The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is a well-established exchange-traded fund designed to track the performance of small-cap stocks in the United States. Launched in May 2000, it offers investors broad exposure to a diverse range of smaller companies, often characterised by higher growth potential compared to large-cap giants. With net assets exceeding USD 77 billion and nearly 2,000 holdings, it provides significant diversification within the small-cap sector. The fund operates with an expense ratio of 0.19% and currently reports a dividend yield of 0.96%. While small-cap stocks can offer attractive opportunities during economic expansions, they may also experience greater volatility and sensitivity to interest rate changes than larger, more established firms. This ETF is generally considered suitable for investors seeking exposure to the US small-cap market as part of a diversified portfolio, bearing in mind that the value of investments can fall as well as rise and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

SCHA (SCHA)

Schwab US Small‑Cap ETF (SCHA) offers broad exposure to US small-capitalisation companies through a low-cost, market‑weighted fund managed by Charles Schwab. It seeks to track a small‑cap index, providing diversified access to hundreds of smaller US-listed firms across sectors. Investors often use SCHA to complement large‑cap holdings, potentially enhancing long‑term growth and diversification, though small caps can be more volatile and sensitive to economic cycles. As an ETF, SCHA trades like a stock on exchanges, making it easy to buy or sell during market hours. It typically has a low expense ratio, but investors should also consider bid‑ask spreads, tracking error, and tax implications. This is general educational information and not personalised advice; returns are not guaranteed and the value of an investment can fall as well as rise. Suitability will depend on an individual’s goals, risk tolerance and investment horizon.

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 IWM or SCHA 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.

IWM vs SCHA

Fund Snapshot