Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs VONG: how they differ
NOBL and VONG hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and NOBL returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and VONG hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | VONG |
|---|---|---|
| AbbVie, Inc. | 1.56% | 1.16% |
| Coca-Cola Co. (The) | 1.55% | 0.45% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.61% | 0.25% |
| Sherwin-Williams Co. (The) | 1.33% | 0.19% |
| Cintas Corp. | 1.43% | 0.18% |
| Walmart, Inc. | 1.31% | 0.15% |
| Caterpillar, Inc. | 1.61% | 0.15% |
| WW Grainger, Inc. | 1.55% | 0.14% |
| Fastenal Co. | 1.42% | 0.13% |
| Colgate-Palmolive Co. | 1.62% | 0.10% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | 1.37% | 0.08% |
| Cardinal Health, Inc. | 1.41% | 0.07% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in VONG |
|---|---|
| Nucor Corp. 1.77% | NVIDIA Corp 13.09% |
| West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% | Apple Inc 11.97% |
| International Business Machines Corp. 1.71% | Microsoft Corp 8.98% |
| Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% | Broadcom Inc 5.78% |
| Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% | Amazon.com Inc 5.07% |
| Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% | Alphabet Inc 3.91% |
| JM Smucker Co. (The) 1.58% | Tesla Inc 3.48% |
| Essex Property Trust, Inc. 1.58% | Meta Platforms Inc 3.20% |
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 | VONG Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | Russell 1000 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +7.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | −10.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 95.6% |
| Holdings | 69 | 387 |
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.
VONG in plain words
VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or VONG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and VONG returned +7.2%, so NOBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or VONG?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 96% of VONG 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 VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources