⚖️ VB vs SCHA Comparison · Free & No Signup

VB vs SCHA: Vanguard vs Schwab in the Small-Cap ETF Race

Both VB and SCHA cover US small-cap stocks at nearly identical cost. The index differs slightly, but for most investors, these are functionally interchangeable.

💰 SCHA is cheaper 🔬 Compare top 10 holdings → 💡 Plain-English verdict
🤝 BFF Take
SCHA Is Marginally Cheaper, but VB Has 3x More Assets and Liquidity

VB (Vanguard Small-Cap ETF) and SCHA (Schwab US Small-Cap ETF) are both excellent low-cost US small-cap ETFs. VB tracks the CRSP US Small Cap Index with ~1,500 stocks at 0.05%; SCHA tracks the Dow Jones US Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index with ~1,750 stocks at 0.04%. The 1 basis point fee difference is negligible. VB has about $60B in assets vs SCHA's $18B, meaningfully more liquid. Both are appropriate alternatives to the much more expensive IWM (Russell 2000, 0.19%) for long-term small-cap exposure. Choose based on your brokerage: Schwab investors naturally prefer SCHA; Vanguard investors prefer VB.

📋 Quick Takeaways
🔄Nearly identical small-cap coverage at essentially the same cost, functionally interchangeable
💰SCHA costs 0.04% vs VB's 0.05%, one basis point cheaper and negligible in practice
🏦VB has $60B AUM vs SCHA's $18B, giving VB significantly better liquidity for large trades
📊 Data-Based Take: VB has the lower fee

Whether the lower-cost fund suits your situation depends on your existing holdings, account type, tax situation, and how you use each fund. This is a cost comparison, not a personalized recommendation.

Reviewed by a CFA® Charterholder · Data as of Jul 14, 2026 · Educational only, not financial advice
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares
Expense Ratio
0.05%
1-Year Return
+22.6%
AUM
$188.6B
Holdings
1,500
SCHA
Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
Expense Ratio
0.04% ✓
1-Year Return
+33.9%
AUM
$24.2B
Holdings
1,750

📋 VB vs SCHA — Key Facts Side by Side

Metric VB SCHA
Fund Name Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF
Issuer Vanguard Schwab
Tracks Index CRSP US Small Cap Dow Jones US Small-Cap Total Stock Market
Expense Ratio 0.05% 0.04% ✓
Cost per $10K/yr $5.00 $4.00
AUM $188.6B $24.2B
Holdings 1,500 1,750
Inception 2004 2009
1-Year Return +22.61% +33.91%
3-Year Return +15.90% +18.86%
5-Year Return +7.41% +7.76%
Dividend Yield 1.19% 0.99%
Holdings Overlap See holdings overlap →
Avg Bid-Ask Spread 0.01% 0.01%

Expense ratio, AUM, and returns updated Jul 14, 2026 from ETF BFF database. Returns are annualised. Not investment advice.

📊 VB vs SCHA — Annualised Returns

Annualised returns (trailing, price-based). Past performance does not guarantee future results.

🎯 Which Fund Fits Which Investor?

Often fits investors who...
VB
  • already use Vanguard and prefer staying within one fund family
Often fits investors who...
SCHA
  • want the lowest fees: saves ~$1/yr per $10K vs VB
  • already use Schwab and prefer staying within one fund family

💰 What the Fee Difference Actually Costs

Adjust the numbers for your situation. This models each fund's expense ratio compounding against your balance over time.

Assumes a constant annual return reinvested, with each fund's expense ratio deducted yearly. Illustrative only; actual returns vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

⚙️ Want the Full Interactive Comparison?

Side-by-side holdings overlap, sector breakdown, and live performance tabs, all in one place.

Run Full VB vs SCHA Comparison → Free · No signup · Instant results
📧 Free Weekly Newsletter

Get smarter about ETFs — one concept a week, free forever

The ETF BFF newsletter breaks down one ETF concept per week — clear, jargon-free, and actually useful.

Free to learn forever · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime

✅ You're in! Check your inbox for your first issue.

❓ VB vs SCHA — Frequently Asked Questions

VB tracks the CRSP US Small Cap Index (~1,500 stocks) at 0.05%. SCHA tracks the Dow Jones US Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index (~1,750 stocks) at 0.04%. Both provide broad US small-cap exposure. The index methodology differences cause minor variation in holdings at the smallest and largest ends of the small-cap range. Performance has been nearly identical over shared history.
Both SCHA and VB are significantly cheaper than IWM (0.19%) and produce similar or better net returns for buy-and-hold investors. The only reason to use IWM over VB or SCHA is if you need the options market liquidity that IWM's massive trading volume provides. For long-term retirement account holders, VB or SCHA are clearly preferable to IWM on cost grounds alone.
Mostly yes, with minor differences at the edges. The core small-cap universe (companies too small for the S&P 500 but above micro-cap) overlaps heavily. SCHA's Dow Jones index captures slightly more micro-cap names; VB's CRSP index has slightly stricter definitions. The difference has no meaningful impact on performance.
This is a matter of investor philosophy and risk tolerance. VTI and other total market funds already include small-caps at market-cap weight (~7-10% of the portfolio). Adding VB or SCHA is a deliberate overweight to small-caps, a factor tilt that some believe will produce a premium over time. The case for small-cap is the documented small-cap premium in historical data; the case against is US small-caps underperformed for much of 2010-2020.
Yes. Some investors hold VB for broad small-cap passive exposure and AVUV for a specific factor tilt toward small-cap value with strong profitability. This blended approach reduces the cost of the factor tilt (since VB is very cheap) while maintaining the AVUV exposure for the specific quality-value premium. There's meaningful overlap in holdings, but AVUV's active selection means different weightings.

New to ETF investing? See answers to the most common ETF questions →

📄 VB & SCHA Fact Sheets

VB Fact Sheet SCHA Fact Sheet
ℹ️ Data shown is for educational purposes and may not reflect the most current figures. Returns are trailing price-based and exclude dividend reinvestment. Past performance does not guarantee future results. ETF BFF is not a licensed financial advisor — this is not personalized financial advice.