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

NOBL vs RDVY: how they differ

NOBL and RDVY hold 5% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and RDVY hold 5% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and RDVY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLRDVY
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.1.61%1.63%
Cincinnati Financial Corp.1.39%1.55%
Aflac, Inc.1.43%0.97%
Abbott Laboratories1.36%0.58%
Dover Corp.1.41%0.52%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in RDVY
Nucor Corp. 1.77%APPLIED MATERIALS INC 4.69%
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73%LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42%
International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%KLA CORP 4.14%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%GE VERNOVA INC 2.80%
Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67%BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15%
Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%GE AEROSPACE 2.13%
Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%ALPHABET INC 2.12%
Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61%WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12%

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.

NOBL and RDVY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesFirst Trust
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsFirst Rising Dividend Achievers
Total return, 1 year+9.4%+22.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts+4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.47%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%94.4%
Holdings6971

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.

RDVY in plain words

RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or RDVY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or RDVY?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so NOBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 5% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources