VaultRubric
E*TRADE vs Schwab
E*TRADE and Schwab are both popular brokerages. Here are the sourced facts side by side, then VaultRubric's equal-weight score with the math shown. Every value links to its source with an as-of date; anything we couldn't verify says not found.
Rates change often — verify on the bank's or broker's site before opening an account. Every value shows its as-of date; ⚑ marks figures from third-party sites. Not financial advice.
Run your own comparison →Opens the tool with these platforms filled in, so you can change the weights.
Key facts compared
| Fact | E*TRADE | Schwab |
|---|---|---|
| Stock/ETF commission | $0 src · 2026-10-10 | $0 src · 2026-10-10 |
| Options (per contract) | $0.65 src · 2026-10-10 | $0.65 src · 2026-10-10 |
| Account minimum | not found | $0 src · 2026-10-10 |
| IRA types | not found | Traditional, Roth, Rollover, SEP, SIMPLE src · 2026-10-10 |
| IRA match | none found | None ⚑ third-party source src · 2026-10-10 |
| Transfer-out fee | $75 src · 2026-10-10 | $50 ⚑ third-party source src · 2026-08-03 |
| SIPC member | Yes src · 2026-10-10 | Yes src · 2026-10-10 |
| FINRA CRD | CRD 29106 src · 2026-10-10 | CRD 5393 src · 2026-10-10 |
| Regulatory actions (5 yrs) | none found in last 5 yrs src · 2026-10-10 | 2022-06-13 SEC: ~$187M for misleading robo-adviser (Intelligent Portfolios) clients about hidden cash fees src |
VaultRubric verdict
Too close to call: Charles Schwab and E*TRADE are within 1.3 points (under 3). Pick on the criteria you care about most.
⚠ Charles Schwab: Regulatory: SEC: ~$187M for misleading robo-adviser (Intelligent Portfolios) clients about hidden cash fees (2022-06-13)
| Criterion (weight) | Charles Schwab | E*TRADE |
|---|---|---|
| Trading costs (17%) | 7.4/10 | 7.4/10 |
| Account minimum (17%) | 10.0/10 | not found |
| IRA options (17%) | 8.0/10 | not found |
| Transfer-out fee (17%) | 8.0/10 | 7.0/10 |
| Protection (SIPC) (17%) | 8.0/10 | 8.0/10 |
| Regulatory record (17%) | 8.0/10 | 10.0/10 |
| Overall | 82.3% coverage 100% | 81.0% coverage 67% |
Show math: Charles Schwab
0.167×7.4 + 0.167×10.0 + 0.167×8.0 + 0.167×8.0 + 0.167×8.0 + 0.167×8.0 = 8.23; ÷ covered weight 1.000 = 8.23/10 → 82.3%Show math: E*TRADE
0.167×7.4 + 0.167×7.0 + 0.167×8.0 + 0.167×10.0 = 5.40; ÷ covered weight 0.667 = 8.10/10 → 81.0%Opens the tool with these platforms filled in, so you can change the weights.
Related comparisons
- Fidelity vs Schwab
- Schwab vs Vanguard
- Ally vs Marcus
- Capital One 360 vs Ally
- SoFi vs Ally
- Wealthfront Cash vs Betterment Cash
- Fidelity vs Vanguard
- Robinhood vs Webull
FAQ
Is E*TRADE or Schwab better?
Too close to call on equal weights (81.0% vs 82.3%). Change the weights in the tool to match your priorities.
Which is cheaper for options, E*TRADE or Schwab?
Per-contract options fee in our data: E*TRADE 0.65, Schwab 0.65. Stock/ETF commissions: 0 vs 0.
Has Schwab faced regulatory action recently?
Our data lists: 2022-06-13 SEC: ~$187M for misleading robo-adviser (Intelligent Portfolios) clients about hidden cash fees.
How does VaultRubric score these?
Only from our curated dataset (official pages, regulators, and flagged third-party sites), with fixed formulas shown in “Show math”. No AI or live scraping, so the same comparison always gives the same result. Not financial advice.