Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DYNF vs NOBL: how they differ
DYNF and NOBL hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and NOBL hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DYNF | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson & Johnson | 1.92% | 1.47% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.93% | 1.44% |
| Walmart Inc | 1.42% | 1.31% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 1.28% | 1.61% |
| Realty Income Corp | 0.93% | 1.41% |
| NextEra Energy Inc | 0.63% | 1.41% |
| McDonald's Corp | 0.32% | 1.36% |
| AbbVie Inc | 0.27% | 1.56% |
| Cardinal Health Inc | 0.20% | 1.41% |
| Automatic Data Processing Inc | 0.13% | 1.61% |
| International Business Machines Corp | 0.05% | 1.71% |
| Eversource Energy | 0.02% | 1.50% |
| Only in DYNF | Only in NOBL |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp 8.62% | Nucor Corp. 1.77% |
| Apple Inc 7.75% | West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% |
| Microsoft Corp 5.35% | Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% |
| Amazon.com Inc 4.42% | Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59% | Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% |
| Broadcom Inc 3.25% | Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% |
| Alphabet Inc 2.87% | JM Smucker Co. (The) 1.58% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 2.76% | Essex Property Trust, Inc. 1.58% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| DYNF iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF | NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | ProShares |
| What it is | U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats |
| Total return, 1 year | +20.8% | +9.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +3.3 pts | −8.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.26% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.8% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 187 | 69 |
DYNF in plain words
DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.
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, DYNF or NOBL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DYNF or NOBL?
- DYNF charges 0.26% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DYNF and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DYNF against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources