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

IWB vs NOBL: how they differ

IWB and NOBL hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and NOBL hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and NOBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBNOBL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON0.88%1.47%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION0.82%1.44%
WALMART INC.0.72%1.31%
CATERPILLAR INC.0.70%1.61%
ABBVIE INC.0.64%1.56%
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY0.49%1.48%
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY0.46%1.55%
CHEVRON CORPORATION0.44%1.44%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT0.38%1.71%
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION0.28%1.36%
Pepsico, Inc.0.27%1.37%
NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.0.27%1.41%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in NOBL
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%Linde plc 1.48%
APPLE INC. 6.03%Chubb Ltd. 1.39%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%Amcor plc 1.39%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%Medtronic plc 1.32%
ALPHABET INC. 3.00%Erie Indemnity Co. 1.23%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%Pentair plc 1.16%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%

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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

IWB and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesProShares
What it isRussell 1000S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%100.0%
Holdings102469

IWB in plain words

IWB is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1024 positions, with the top ten at 33.5%.

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, IWB or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so IWB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or NOBL?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources