Investors weighing two low-cost U.S. equity exchange-traded funds—State Street’s SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF and Schwab’s U.S. Broad Market ETF—are faced with a close comparison. Both charge the same 0.03% expense ratio and posted identical 24.9% total returns over the trailing 12 months through June 8, according to the figures cited in the funds’ comparative materials. The key differences come down to index coverage, portfolio concentration, and liquidity.
Key takeaways
- Price move: The article does not report a single-day market move for either ETF; it compares trailing performance and risk metrics.
- Catalyst: The ETFs are compared based on index tracking—S&P Composite 1500 for State Street’s fund versus the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index for Schwab’s.
- Expense parity: Both funds charge a 0.03% expense ratio, and both show 24.9% total returns over the last 12 months (through June 8).
- Implication: Investors seeking deeper equity market breadth may prefer Schwab’s approach, while those focused on the S&P Composite 1500 may find State Street’s slightly lower five-year drawdown more attractive.
How the funds stack up on cost and performance
On basic cost and recent results, the comparison is essentially tied. Both ETFs charge an expense ratio of 0.03% and both delivered identical 24.9% one-year total returns through June 8, 2026, based on the report’s cited metrics. Their risk profiles are also similar, with beta readings near 1.00.
The dividend comparison shows a small difference. State Street’s ETF carried a 1.04% dividend yield, while Schwab’s showed a 1.01% dividend yield, using trailing-12-month distributions as stated in the materials.
What drives the differences: coverage and concentration
The main divergence is the number of stocks included and, by extension, how widely each fund reaches across the U.S. equity market. Schwab’s ETF holds 2,410 stocks, described as offering broader participation in the market than State Street’s fund, which holds 1,512 companies.
That wider roster is paired with different concentration in top holdings. Schwab’s fund lists its largest positions as Nvidia at 6.99%, Apple at 6.33%, and Microsoft at 4.34%. State Street’s holdings show slightly higher weights in the same mega-cap names: Nvidia at 7.37%, Apple at 6.43%, and Microsoft at 4.44%. The article attributes these differences to the index structures—S&P Composite 1500 versus the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index.
Sector mix is also broadly aligned, with technology cited as the largest weight at 37% in both portfolios. Financial services is listed at 11% for each, while additional sector distinctions appear in the remainder of the allocations.
Market risk and the long-term growth trade-off
While both funds are built as core long-term holdings, the comparison highlights a risk and outcomes gap over the last five years. State Street’s fund shows a maximum drawdown of (24.1%) versus (25.4%) for Schwab’s, as provided in the report. The long-run growth metric presented also favors State Street: $1,000 invested over five years would have grown to $1,842 with the State Street ETF compared with $1,787 with the Schwab fund, based on total return growth figures included in the materials.
For investors, those differences suggest that even when returns are close over a one-year window, the path of performance—particularly during market declines—can diverge depending on index construction and how the portfolio handles the largest weights.
Liquidity and assets under management
Beyond the holdings themselves, the report flags a practical consideration: scale. Schwab’s ETF has $42.4 billion in assets under management, compared with $13.3 billion for the State Street ETF. The article suggests the larger asset base can support stronger day-to-day trading liquidity and potentially tighter bid-ask spreads, though it does not provide specific spread measurements.
In addition, the materials note that Schwab’s broader stock count can translate into more exposure to smaller companies, while State Street’s narrower index slice is positioned as reaching a bit less widely across the investable domestic universe—though it is described as still targeting a large portion of U.S. equity markets.
What to watch next
Investors comparing U.S. broad-market ETFs may want to monitor how each index performs during periods when leadership shifts between mega-cap and smaller-cap segments, particularly given the different stock counts and top-weight concentrations highlighted in the comparison. For ongoing risk and return assessment, the next key check points are upcoming distributions and any changes in index membership or fund holdings resulting from each benchmark’s methodology, along with broader market drivers such as interest-rate expectations and inflation trends that typically influence valuation across growth and value.
