Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FDVV vs NOBL: how they differ
FDVV and NOBL hold 13% of their weight in the same names, and FDVV returned more over the year.
Fidelity High Dividend ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and NOBL hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FDVV | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| COCA COLA CO | 1.85% | 1.55% |
| PROCTER and GAMBLE CO | 1.81% | 1.48% |
| NEXTERA ENERGY INC | 1.39% | 1.41% |
| PEPSICO INC | 1.63% | 1.37% |
| MCDONALDS CORP | 1.55% | 1.36% |
| LOWES COS INC | 1.38% | 1.25% |
| EVERSOURCE ENERGY | 1.06% | 1.50% |
| IBM CORPORATION | 0.90% | 1.71% |
| REALTY INCOME CORP | 0.90% | 1.41% |
| JOHNSON and JOHNSON | 0.49% | 1.47% |
| CATERPILLAR INC | 0.46% | 1.61% |
| ABBVIE INC | 0.40% | 1.56% |
| Only in FDVV | Only in NOBL |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORP 6.86% | Nucor Corp. 1.77% |
| APPLE INC 5.70% | West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% |
| MICROSOFT CORP 4.50% | Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% |
| BROADCOM INC 3.50% | Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58% | Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% |
| ALPHABET INC 2.21% | Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 1.78% | JM Smucker Co. (The) 1.58% |
| GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71% | 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.
| FDVV Fidelity High Dividend ETF | NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | ProShares |
| What it is | High Dividend | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.2% | +9.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −0.3 pts | −8.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 86.7% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 96 | 69 |
FDVV in plain words
FDVV is an index equity fund tracking the High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 96 positions, with the top ten at 32.5%.
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, FDVV or NOBL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so FDVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, FDVV or NOBL?
- FDVV charges 0.15% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do FDVV and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 13% 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, FDVV against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources