What do SCHQ and VGLT represent?

SCHQ and VGLT are long-term US government bond ETFs designed to provide exposure to long-duration Treasury securities. Fund A and Fund B both track indices classified as not available. These funds are typically used to reflect performance within the long government bond sector. Investors examine these ETFs for their structural features, expense ratios, and dividend yields as part of educational comparison of fixed-income vehicles.

Why is an ETF expense ratio important?

An expense ratio reflects the annual cost of managing a fund, deducted directly from its assets. Both SCHQ and VGLT report an expense ratio of 0.03%. While this figure is identical, even small differences can affect long-term performance. The expense ratio is a factual component of the fund's structure that investors use to understand the cost of accessing long-term US government bond exposure through an ETF wrapper rather than individual securities.

How do SCHQ and VGLT compare on fees?

Fund A and Fund B both report an expense ratio of 0.03%. Since the figures are identical, there is no direct fee difference in percentage points between the two. For a beginner, this suggests that costs are not the differentiating factor when comparing these specific products. The 0.03% cost is considered low for long-duration government bond exposure, allowing investors to see how similar fee structures operate within the same ETF category.

What does the dividend yield difference mean?

The reported dividend yield is 4.93% for Fund A and 4.82% for Fund B. A yield difference of 0.11 percentage points is observed. However, yields are based on past distributions and current prices, meaning they can fluctuate. Distributions are not guaranteed fixed payments. This comparison provides a snapshot of income potential based on specific data points without implying that one fund is superior for income generation or future performance.

How do fund sizes influence the comparison?

Net assets represent the total value of all holdings within a fund. Fund B reports substantial net assets of $10.4 billion, whereas Fund A reports $916 million. This significant difference in scale can influence liquidity and operational stability. While both funds offer similar exposure to long-term Treasuries, investors often evaluate asset size as a factor in understanding the potential for tighter trading spreads and the fund's ability to handle large institutional flows.

What are the tracking differences?

For Fund A and Fund B, the specific indices tracked are reported as not available. This limits transparency regarding the exact replication methodology and the specific benchmark each fund aims to follow. Without this index information, assessing tracking error or specific duration positioning becomes difficult. Investors are encouraged to look beyond the ticker symbol to understand the underlying index and how the fund's portfolio is constructed relative to the long government market segment.

What is the overlap in top holdings?

The shared top 10 holdings among the listed top holdings for Fund A and Fund B is none. Additionally, specific top holdings for both funds are reported as not available. This lack of data prevents a clear assessment of concentration or diversification in specific Treasury maturities. Investors comparing these two ETFs must recognise that identical sector classifications do not guarantee identical portfolio holdings or maturity diversification strategies between the two issuers.

Do these funds react the same way to interest rates?

Both funds fall under the Long Government category, implying they are sensitive to interest rate movements. However, because sector weights are not available for either fund, specific duration positioning cannot be verified. Typically, longer-duration bonds experience greater price sensitivity when interest rates change. Without detailed sector weights or index tracking data, one cannot definitively state that the risk exposure is identical, despite both funds targeting the same broad market sector.

How does inception date affect data history?

Fund B has an inception date of 19 November 2009, while Fund A was launched on 10 October 2019. This ten-year difference means Fund B has a longer track record. Longer history can provide more context on how the fund has tracked its index through various market cycles. A shorter history for Fund A offers a less developed sample of data, which may influence how investors assess historical consistency and long-term structural behaviour.

What educational takeaway applies to this comparison?

Comparing SCHQ and VGLT demonstrates that while two ETFs may have similar fees and categories, differences in asset size, inception dates, and available disclosure data can exist. The unavailability of index and holding details for both funds highlights the importance of due diligence. Investors should understand that data points like expense ratios are just one component of an ETF, and transparency regarding the underlying portfolio is equally critical for informed analysis.

SCHQ vs VGLT

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

Compare the Schwab Long Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ) with the Vanguard Long-Treme Treasury ETF (VGLT) on fees, holdings, dividends and market tracking, plus inception dates of 10 October 2019 and 19 November 2009. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

SCHQ

Metric

VGLT

0.03%

Expense Ratio

0.03%

4.93%

Dividend Yield

4.82%

$916.04M

Net Assets

$10.43B

102

Holdings

103

Oct 10, 2019

Inception Date

Nov 19, 2009

–

Index Tracked

–

Long Government

Fund Category

Long Government

Both funds charge the same annual fee.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

SCHQ vs TLT

Schwab Long Term U.S. Treasury ETF vs iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF. Compare 0.03% vs 0.15% fees, 4.93% vs 4.76% yields and tracking methods.

EDV vs VGLT

Compare EDV and VGLT by expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields and tracking details to assess long-term treasury options. Educational content.

BLV vs VGLT

Compare BLV and VGLT. Review fees, dividends, holdings, and tracking. Both have 0.03% expense ratios. Data includes assets and yields. Neutral analysis.

Investment Analysis

SCHQ

Pros

Funds charge a low expense ratio of 0.03% annually for long-duration government bond exposure
The fund offers a competitive yield of 4.93% based on the reported dividend yield
With $916 million in net assets it provides meaningful institutional scale for long-term investors

Considerations

The index tracked is not available which limits transparency on replication methodology
Sector weights are not available reducing clarity on duration positioning and risk exposure
Top holdings are not disclosed preventing assessment of concentration in specific Treasury maturities

VGLT

Pros

It maintains a very low expense ratio of 0.03% consistent with long-term Treasury ETF standards
The fund reports a yield of 4.82% which reflects recent higher interest rate conditions
With $10.4 billion in net assets the fund has substantial size supporting liquidity and stability

Considerations

The index tracked is not available creating uncertainty about benchmark alignment and tracking approach
Sector weights are not available making it difficult to evaluate duration profile and interest rate sensitivity
Top holdings are not disclosed limiting insight into maturity diversification and credit concentration

About SCHQ and VGLT

SCHQ (SCHQ)

This exchange-traded fund (ETF) aims to track the performance of long-term U.S. Treasury securities, offering investors exposure to government-backed bonds with maturities typically exceeding 10 years. Managed by Schwab, this fund stands out for its exceptionally low expense ratio of just 0.03%, making it a cost-efficient choice for those seeking yield. With a net asset value of approximately USD 916 million and a current dividend yield of 4.93%, it provides a stream of income derived from interest payments. Investors should be aware that while Treasury securities are considered safe from default risk, they are sensitive to interest rate fluctuations. As such, the value of the fund can rise and fall based on changes in prevailing interest rates and economic conditions. It serves as a potential diversification tool within a broader fixed-income portfolio, offering stability and predictable income streams.

VGLT (VGLT)

The Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF, traded under the ticker VGLT, is an exchange-traded fund designed to provide investors with exposure to US government bonds with longer maturities. As a part of the Vanguard Scottsdale Funds family, it aims to track the performance of long-term Treasury securities issued by the United States government. This fund falls into the 'Long Government' category, reflecting its focus on bonds with significant time to maturity. Investors should be aware that while these bonds are generally considered lower risk due to the backing of the US government, their prices can fluctuate significantly in response to changes in interest rates. The fund offers a relatively low expense ratio, enhancing potential net returns, and pays out income from the underlying Treasury securities. It's essential to understand that bond ETF values can rise and fall, and past performance does not guarantee future results.

Buy SCHQ or VGLT 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.

SCHQ vs VGLT

Fund Snapshot