IUSV vs SCHV: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF (IUSV) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) — both US Large Cap Value funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
IUSV and SCHV compete directly — both are US Large Cap Value funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — SCHV scores higher: 80.8 (Grade B+) versus 73.2 for IUSV. That doesn't make IUSV a bad fund; it means SCHV currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| IUSV | SCHV | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Large Cap Value | US Large Cap Value |
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $26.5B | $15.9B |
| Dividend yield | 1.30% | 1.75% |
| 1-year return | +17.61% | +22.99% |
| 3-year return | +46.76% | +58.22% |
| Volatility | 10.05% | 11.21% |
| Max drawdown | -17.76% | -15.27% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.25 | 1.60 |
| ETFValuer score | 73.2 | 80.8 |
| Grade | B | B+ |
| Overall rank | #68 | #14 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
On cost, the two are essentially tied — IUSV charges 0.04% a year versus SCHV's 0.04%. A difference this small (about $0.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What IUSV's Fees Cost You
IUSV charges an expense ratio of 0.04% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, SCHV returned +58.22% versus +46.76% for IUSV — a gap of about 11.5 percentage points. On risk, SCHV has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-15.27% vs. -17.76%). SCHV currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.60 vs. 1.25), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), IUSV and SCHV show a high correlation of 0.952 — closely related, but not identical. Holding both would add very little diversification: when one falls, the other almost always falls with it. Treat these as alternatives to each other, not as complements in the same portfolio.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.952 | High — closely related, but not identical |
| R-squared | 90.5% | 90.5% of IUSV's daily moves are explained by SCHV's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 3.98% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | IUSV +13.90% · SCHV +16.80% | SCHV ahead by 2.89 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, IUSV finished as much as +4.0 points ahead of SCHV at the best extreme and -10.2 points at the worst — a 14.2-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
IUSV and SCHV hold 2 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 4.4% of IUSV and 3.6% of SCHV. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | IUSV Weight | SCHV Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp. | 2.48% | 1.97% |
| Walmart Inc | 1.91% | 1.65% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean IUSV if…
- It has been the calmer ride (10.1% volatility vs 11.2%)
Lean SCHV if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 1.75% against 1.30%
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.60 beats 1.25
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 58.2% over 3 years against 46.8%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IUSV or SCHV better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — SCHV scores higher: 80.8 (Grade B+) versus 73.2 for IUSV. That doesn't make IUSV a bad fund; it means SCHV currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, IUSV or SCHV?
SCHV currently has the lower expense ratio (0.04% vs. 0.04%).
Can I hold both IUSV and SCHV?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.95, IUSV and SCHV fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.