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

IYR vs NOBL: how they differ

IYR and NOBL hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and NOBL returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IYR and NOBL hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IYR and NOBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIYRNOBL
REALTY INCOME CORPORATION4.29%1.41%
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.1.39%1.58%
FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TRUST0.72%1.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IYROnly in NOBL
WELLTOWER INC. 10.88%Nucor Corp. 1.77%
PROLOGIS, INC. 8.77%West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73%
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC. 4.79%International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%
EQUINIX, INC. 4.58%Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%
DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC. 4.41%Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67%
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION 3.88%Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%
PUBLIC STORAGE. 3.74%Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%
VENTAS, INC. 3.21%Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

IYR and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IYR
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesProShares
What it isU.S. Real EstateS&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+4.7%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−12.8 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50080.4%100.0%
Holdings6169

IYR in plain words

IYR is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Real Estate. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +4.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.37% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 80% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 61 positions, with the top ten at 51.5%. It sat 6.1% below its high of Jul 28, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, IYR or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IYR returned +4.7% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so NOBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IYR or NOBL?
IYR charges 0.37% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so NOBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IYR and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 80% of IYR and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources