Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs RSP: how they differ
NOBL and RSP hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and RSP returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and RSP hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| Nucor Corp. | 1.77% | 0.25% |
| Caterpillar, Inc. | 1.61% | 0.24% |
| West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. | 1.73% | 0.24% |
| Franklin Resources, Inc. | 1.67% | 0.23% |
| Albemarle Corp. | 1.31% | 0.23% |
| T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. | 1.55% | 0.22% |
| FactSet Research Systems, Inc. | 1.50% | 0.21% |
| Target Corp. | 1.41% | 0.21% |
| Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. | 1.39% | 0.21% |
| Dover Corp. | 1.41% | 0.21% |
| NextEra Energy, Inc. | 1.41% | 0.21% |
| Walmart, Inc. | 1.31% | 0.21% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| Linde plc 1.48% | Intel Corp. 0.38% |
| Chubb Ltd. 1.39% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| Amcor plc 1.39% | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33% |
| Medtronic plc 1.32% | ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33% |
| Pentair plc 1.16% | Sandisk Corp. 0.32% |
| Western Digital Corp. 0.31% | |
| Ciena Corp. 0.30% | |
| Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29% |
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.
| NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Invesco |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 69 | 503 |
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.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and RSP returned +14.8%, so RSP returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or RSP?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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 RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources