Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
HDV vs NOBL: how they differ
HDV and NOBL hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and HDV returned more over the year.
iShares Core High Dividend ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, HDV and NOBL hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | HDV | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| ABBVIE INC | 5.45% | 1.56% |
| COCA-COLA COMPANY (THE) | 3.88% | 1.55% |
| PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY (THE) | 4.47% | 1.48% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 5.70% | 1.47% |
| CHEVRON CORP | 6.45% | 1.44% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORP | 8.45% | 1.44% |
| PEPSICO INC | 3.67% | 1.37% |
| AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS INC | 0.84% | 1.39% |
| ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC | 0.83% | 1.34% |
| KIMBERLY CLARK CORP | 0.77% | 1.49% |
| COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY | 0.74% | 1.62% |
| T. ROWE PRICE GROUP INC | 0.60% | 1.55% |
| Only in HDV | Only in NOBL |
|---|---|
| PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 4.18% | Nucor Corp. 1.77% |
| HOME DEPOT INC (THE) 4.08% | West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% |
| PROGRESSIVE CORP (THE) 3.80% | International Business Machines Corp. 1.71% |
| MERCK & COMPANY INC 3.78% | Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% |
| ALTRIA GROUP INC 3.71% | Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% |
| TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC 3.55% | Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61% |
| BLACKSTONE INC 2.43% | Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61% |
| QUALCOMM INC 2.38% | Hormel Foods Corp. 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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| HDV iShares Core High Dividend ETF | NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | ProShares |
| What it is | Core High Dividend | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats |
| Total return, 1 year | +22.5% | +9.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.0 pts | −8.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.0% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 75 | 69 |
HDV in plain words
HDV is an index equity fund tracking the Core High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 75 positions, with the top ten at 50.2%.
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, HDV or NOBL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, HDV returned +22.5% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so HDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, HDV or NOBL?
- HDV charges 0.08% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so HDV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do HDV and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 98% of HDV and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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, HDV against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/HDV-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources