Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CGDV vs NOBL: how they differ

CGDV and NOBL hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and CGDV returned more over the year.

Capital Group Dividend Value ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGDV and NOBL hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGDV and NOBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGDVNOBL
AbbVie Inc1.35%1.56%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.34%1.44%
NextEra Energy Inc1.02%1.41%
McDonald's Corp0.93%1.36%
General Dynamics Corp0.83%1.57%
Illinois Tool Works Inc0.82%1.34%
Abbott Laboratories0.76%1.36%
Air Products and Chemicals Inc0.74%1.39%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGDVOnly in NOBL
Microsoft Corp 5.81%Nucor Corp. 1.77%
NVIDIA Corp 5.66%West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73%
Broadcom Inc 5.16%International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%
Alphabet Inc 3.60%Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.33%Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.15%Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%
Applied Materials Inc 3.12%Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%
General Electric Co 3.08%Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated May 31, 2026.

CGDV and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGDV
Capital Group Dividend Value ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalProShares
What it isDividend ValueS&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50091.0%100.0%
Holdings5369

CGDV in plain words

CGDV is an index equity fund tracking the Dividend Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 38.8%. It sat 4.0% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

NOBL in plain words

NOBL is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +9.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 69 positions, with the top ten at 16.6%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGDV or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGDV returned +18.7% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so CGDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGDV or NOBL?
CGDV charges 0.33% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so CGDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGDV and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of CGDV and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

CGDV against NOBL, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGDV against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGDV-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources