Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
MTUM vs NOBL: how they differ
MTUM and NOBL hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and NOBL hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | MTUM | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 3.21% | 1.61% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.76% | 1.47% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION | 3.44% | 1.44% |
| WALMART INC. | 2.76% | 1.31% |
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT | 1.20% | 1.71% |
| CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. | 0.29% | 1.41% |
| C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. | 0.08% | 1.43% |
| ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION | 0.06% | 1.36% |
| EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, | 0.05% | 1.54% |
| Only in MTUM | Only in NOBL |
|---|---|
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57% | Nucor Corp. 1.77% |
| BROADCOM INC. 5.41% | West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.65% | Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 4.04% | Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% |
| INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% | Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62% | Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61% |
| ALPHABET INC. 2.95% | Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87% | JM Smucker Co. (The) 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.
| MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | ProShares |
| What it is | MSCI USA Momentum Factor | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.8% | +9.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.3 pts | −8.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.2% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 125 | 69 |
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% 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, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 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, MTUM or NOBL?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +21.8% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, MTUM or NOBL?
- MTUM charges 0.15% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do MTUM and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 98% of MTUM and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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, MTUM against NOBL, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MTUM-NOBL Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources