Curated comparison
Compare three low-cost dividend cores by yield, fee, breadth, and selection philosophy.
Dataset 97e56f011b2e · imported Sep 7, 2026 · issuer evidence checked 2026-09-08
| Fund | Yield | AUM | Expense | Cumulative return | Payout | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCHDQuality dividend core | 3.00% | $112B | 0.06% | +568.0% | Quarterly | Source-reported |
| VIGDividend growth tilt | 1.50% | $124B | 0.04% | +624.0% | Quarterly | Source-reported |
| VYMBroad high-dividend exposure | 2.50% | $82.3B | 0.04% | +494.0% | Quarterly | Source-reported |
Yield, AUM, and cumulative return are source-reported and may use different as-of dates. Fees, inception, strategy, and payout cadence are checked against official issuer material. A distribution rate is not a total-return forecast.
Decision framework
Choose SCHD for a quality-and-yield blend, VIG for dividend growth, or VYM for broader high-dividend exposure. None is universally best; the portfolio role decides.
SCHD pairs a concentrated dividend index with unusually low carrying cost. Its yield is modest beside option-income funds, so the relevant comparison is long-run total return and dividend quality rather than cash payout alone.
Key risk: Its index methodology can create sector concentration and can lag growth-led markets for extended periods.
VIG is better read as a quality-tilted equity allocation than as an income maximizer. Its lower yield can be a feature when the objective is participation in corporate growth with a dividend-growth discipline.
Key risk: The dividend-growth screen may exclude newer or higher-yielding companies and can tilt the portfolio toward expensive large caps.
VYM owns a wider high-dividend universe than quality-focused alternatives. That breadth supports diversification, but the methodology puts less emphasis on dividend growth or profitability screens than SCHD, VIG, or DGRO.
Key risk: A yield-oriented screen can overweight mature sectors and companies whose yields rise because their prices have weakened.
Method and limitation
The conclusion compares visible portfolio roles, costs, payout cadence, source-reported metrics, and stated strategy risks. It is educational, does not rank funds for every investor, and does not account for your taxes, time horizon, or portfolio.