Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs VO: how they differ
NOBL and VO hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and VO returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and VO hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | VO |
|---|---|---|
| WW Grainger, Inc. | 1.55% | 0.59% |
| Target Corp. | 1.41% | 0.57% |
| Realty Income Corp. | 1.41% | 0.56% |
| Cardinal Health, Inc. | 1.41% | 0.54% |
| Fastenal Co. | 1.42% | 0.54% |
| Aflac, Inc. | 1.43% | 0.52% |
| Nucor Corp. | 1.77% | 0.49% |
| Becton Dickinson & Co. | 1.38% | 0.41% |
| Consolidated Edison, Inc. | 1.44% | 0.40% |
| Sysco Corp. | 1.49% | 0.39% |
| Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. | 1.68% | 0.36% |
| Kenvue, Inc. | 1.47% | 0.36% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in VO |
|---|---|
| International Business Machines Corp. 1.71% | Vertiv Holdings Co 1.23% |
| Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% | Western Digital Corp 1.07% |
| Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.05% |
| Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61% | Quanta Services Inc 1.05% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61% | Howmet Aerospace Inc 1.04% |
| Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% | Cummins Inc 0.95% |
| JM Smucker Co. (The) 1.58% | Datadog Inc 0.84% |
| Essex Property Trust, Inc. 1.58% | Bloom Energy Corp 0.79% |
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 ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | VO Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | Mid-Cap |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +12.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | −5.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 91.4% |
| Holdings | 69 | 282 |
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.
VO in plain words
VO is an index equity fund tracking the Mid-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 9.6%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or VO?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and VO returned +12.0%, so VO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or VO?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and VO charges 0.03%, so VO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and VO overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 91% of VO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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 VO, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-VO Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources