Curated comparison
Compare broad market, large-cap growth, and dividend-quality portfolio roles.
Dataset 97e56f011b2e · imported Sep 7, 2026 · issuer evidence checked 2026-09-08
| Fund | Yield | AUM | Expense | Cumulative return | Payout | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VOOBroad U.S. large-cap core | 1.10% | $1040B | 0.03% | +834.0% | Quarterly | Conflict retained |
| VUGLarge-cap growth core | — | $197B | 0.04% | +1234.0% | Quarterly | Source-reported |
| SCHDQuality dividend core | 3.00% | $112B | 0.06% | +568.0% | 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
VOO is the broad core, VUG is the growth tilt, and SCHD is the dividend-quality tilt. The choice is an allocation decision, not a yield contest.
VOO is the useful control case for many income comparisons: it does not manufacture distributions through options and retains full market upside and downside. Its current-income yield is secondary to broad total return.
Key risk: Market-cap weighting creates meaningful mega-cap concentration, and the fund offers no protection from broad equity drawdowns.
VUG concentrates on growth characteristics and should not be compared with income funds on yield. The relevant questions are valuation, concentration, drawdown tolerance, and the role of growth exposure in the full portfolio.
Key risk: High valuations and mega-cap technology concentration can produce deep drawdowns when rates rise or growth expectations reset.
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.
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.