Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs VYM: how they differ
NOBL and VYM hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and VYM returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and VYM hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Caterpillar, Inc. | 1.61% | 1.73% |
| AbbVie, Inc. | 1.56% | 1.57% |
| Johnson & Johnson | 1.47% | 2.31% |
| Procter & Gamble Co. (The) | 1.48% | 1.45% |
| Chevron Corp. | 1.44% | 1.51% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp. | 1.44% | 2.73% |
| Coca-Cola Co. (The) | 1.55% | 1.28% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | 1.37% | 0.91% |
| International Business Machines Corp. | 1.71% | 0.90% |
| McDonald's Corp. | 1.36% | 0.88% |
| NextEra Energy, Inc. | 1.41% | 0.85% |
| Abbott Laboratories | 1.36% | 0.66% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in VYM |
|---|---|
| West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% | Broadcom Inc 8.07% |
| Essex Property Trust, Inc. 1.58% | JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.36% |
| Federal Realty Investment Trust 1.58% | Cisco Systems Inc 1.52% |
| WW Grainger, Inc. 1.55% | Bank of America Corp 1.45% |
| Expeditors International of Washington, 1.54% | UnitedHealth Group Inc 1.41% |
| Church & Dwight Co., Inc. 1.51% | Home Depot Inc/The 1.37% |
| Nordson Corp. 1.49% | Oracle Corp 1.14% |
| Linde plc 1.48% | Merck & Co Inc 1.14% |
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 | VYM Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | US high dividend |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +17.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | +0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 92.2% |
| Holdings | 69 | 608 |
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.
VYM in plain words
VYM is an index equity fund tracking the US high dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 608 positions, with the top ten at 25.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or VYM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and VYM returned +17.6%, so VYM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or VYM?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and VYM charges 0.04%, so VYM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and VYM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 92% of VYM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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 VYM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-VYM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources