Global exchange-traded fund investors are increasingly weighing whether to use a developed ex-U.S. portfolio or a true “core” global basket that includes U.S., developed, and emerging markets. Two of the most widely used options are Schwab’s developed-international fund, the Schwab International Equity ETF, and State Street’s MSCI ACWI-based vehicle, the SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF.
According to fund data cited in the article, Schwab’s fund posted the stronger 1-year total return, while State Street’s fund led on a longer time horizon—an outcome consistent with recent performance concentration in U.S. mega-cap technology names that appear in the global benchmark.
Key takeaways
- Performance: SCHF delivered a higher 1-year total return than SPGM, while SPGM showed stronger total growth over five years.
- Catalyst: The difference is driven by index design—SPGM includes U.S. equities, while SCHF focuses on developed markets outside the U.S.
- Costs: Both funds are low-cost, with SCHF charging 0.03% versus SPGM’s 0.09% expense ratio.
- Income profile: SCHF’s trailing-12-month dividend yield is higher than SPGM’s, based on the figures provided.
- Implication: Investors may choose SCHF to complement existing U.S. exposure, or choose SPGM as a single diversified global core holding.
What the funds hold and why the indexes matter
According to the article, SPGM seeks to track the MSCI ACWI IMI Index, which is designed to cover nearly the entire investable global equity market. Its sector allocations are led by technology at 30.7%, financial services at 16.5%, and industrials at 12.7%. The article also states that the portfolio is spread across 2,927 stocks, with top weights including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft.
SCHF, by contrast, is built around the FTSE Developed ex U.S. Index, which provides exposure to developed markets excluding the United States. The article reports that SCHF holds 1,492 stocks, with sector allocations led by financial services at 24.0%, technology at 18.7%, and industrials at 17.5%. Its largest holdings in the article include Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and ASML.
In practical terms, the portfolio construction difference largely explains why returns can diverge. SPGM can benefit directly from U.S. market leadership, while SCHF is positioned to capture non-U.S. developed equity returns.
Costs, yield, and risk comparison
According to the figures cited in the article, the expense ratio is one of the sharpest differentiators. SPGM charges 0.09%, which the article describes as affordable but still higher than SCHF’s 0.03% fee.
The article also points to income differences. Based on the reported trailing-12-month metrics, SCHF’s dividend yield is 3.06% compared with SPGM’s 1.80%, a gap of 1.26 percentage points as stated in the article.
On downside behavior, the article provides a five-year maximum drawdown comparison, showing SCHF at (29.14%) and SPGM at (25.92%). Beta, a measure of volatility relative to the S&P 500 using the methodology described in the article, is reported as 1.03 for SCHF and 1.00 for SPGM.
For investors evaluating risk-adjusted decisions, those metrics suggest both funds move broadly in line with the broader equity market, with SCHF showing a larger historical peak-to-trough decline over the period referenced.
Performance split: why SCHF’s 1-year strength doesn’t automatically translate
According to the article, SCHF posted the higher 1-year return as of July 24, 2026—24.29% versus SPGM’s 21.22%. Over five years, however, the article reports stronger total growth for SPGM, measured by growth of $1,000 over the period. It cites $1,598 for SCHF and $1,675 for SPGM.
The article attributes the five-year advantage to SPGM’s inclusion of U.S. mega-cap technology exposure through the global index, while SCHF—by design—does not directly capture the U.S. upside.
This pattern matters for investors because it implies that recent leadership in U.S. large-cap equities may continue to influence relative outcomes. If U.S. markets underperform global peers over a given window, SCHF’s structure could look more attractive; if U.S. leadership resumes, SPGM’s benchmark construction may provide a tailwind.
Market reaction is not the story—allocation choices are
Neither fund is tied to a single near-term headline in the article; the key driver is portfolio composition versus benchmark scope. Investors typically react to these choices through rebalancing rather than through day-to-day market moves, as the funds are passively managed to their respective indices.
In that sense, the “move” between SCHF and SPGM is best viewed as a strategic shift in how much exposure a portfolio has to U.S. equities versus developed international markets.
What to watch next
Going forward, investors comparing SCHF and SPGM may want to track whether relative equity performance remains concentrated in U.S. mega-caps or broadens across regions. With both funds exposed to global stock market cycles, changes in currency and regional valuation can also affect outcomes—particularly for SCHF’s developed ex-U.S. focus. Upcoming catalysts for performance will largely be macro data and policy decisions that influence equity risk appetite and interest-rate expectations, alongside any index rebalancing effects that come from benchmark methodology updates.
