Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs ONEQ: how they differ
NOBL and ONEQ hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and ONEQ hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | ONEQ |
|---|---|---|
| Walmart, Inc. | 1.31% | 2.02% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | 1.37% | 0.43% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.61% | 0.19% |
| Cintas Corp. | 1.43% | 0.15% |
| Fastenal Co. | 1.42% | 0.11% |
| Roper Technologies, Inc. | 1.32% | 0.07% |
| Kimberly-Clark Corp. | 1.49% | 0.07% |
| Cincinnati Financial Corp. | 1.39% | 0.05% |
| T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. | 1.55% | 0.05% |
| CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc. | 1.43% | 0.04% |
| Nordson Corp. | 1.49% | 0.03% |
| Erie Indemnity Co. | 1.23% | 0.02% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in ONEQ |
|---|---|
| Nucor Corp. 1.77% | NVIDIA CORP 11.24% |
| West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% | APPLE INC 10.04% |
| International Business Machines Corp. 1.71% | MICROSOFT CORP 7.32% |
| Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% | AMAZON.COM INC 6.37% |
| Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% | ALPHABET INC 4.85% |
| Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% | BROADCOM INC 4.64% |
| Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61% | ALPHABET INC 4.48% |
| Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% | TESLA INC 3.58% |
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 May 31, 2026.
| NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Fidelity |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | Nasdaq Composite |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +20.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | +3.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.21% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 87.4% |
| Holdings | 69 | 1022 |
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.
ONEQ in plain words
ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or ONEQ?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or ONEQ?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% 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, NOBL against ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources