Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWD vs NOBL: how they differ
IWD and NOBL hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWD and NOBL hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWD | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.72% | 1.47% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION | 1.60% | 1.44% |
| WALMART INC. | 1.28% | 1.31% |
| ABBVIE INC. | 1.15% | 1.56% |
| THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY | 0.96% | 1.48% |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION | 0.86% | 1.44% |
| THE COCA-COLA COMPANY | 0.79% | 1.55% |
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT | 0.74% | 1.71% |
| MCDONALD'S CORPORATION | 0.54% | 1.36% |
| NEXTERA ENERGY, INC. | 0.51% | 1.41% |
| Pepsico, Inc. | 0.46% | 1.37% |
| ABBOTT LABORATORIES | 0.44% | 1.36% |
| Only in IWD | Only in NOBL |
|---|---|
| AMAZON.COM, INC. 5.95% | Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61% |
| APPLE INC. 5.38% | Linde plc 1.48% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.89% | Cintas Corp. 1.43% |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62% | Chubb Ltd. 1.39% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46% | Amcor plc 1.39% |
| INTEL CORPORATION 1.72% | Medtronic plc 1.32% |
| CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.30% | Erie Indemnity Co. 1.23% |
| UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED 1.05% | Pentair plc 1.16% |
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.
| IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF | NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | ProShares |
| What it is | Russell 1000 value | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats |
| Total return, 1 year | +27.4% | +9.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +9.9 pts | −8.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 90.2% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 870 | 69 |
IWD in plain words
IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.
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, IWD or NOBL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWD or NOBL?
- IWD charges 0.18% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWD and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD 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, IWD against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWD-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources