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 XLF: how they differ

NOBL and XLF hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and NOBL returned more over the year.

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and XLF hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and XLF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLXLF
S&P Global, Inc.1.40%1.63%
Aflac, Inc.1.43%0.71%
Cincinnati Financial Corp.1.39%0.38%
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.1.55%0.32%
Brown & Brown, Inc.1.20%0.25%
Franklin Resources, Inc.1.67%0.14%
FactSet Research Systems, Inc.1.50%0.11%
Erie Indemnity Co.1.23%0.08%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in XLF
Nucor Corp. 1.77%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 12.10%
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73%JPMorgan Chase & Co 11.57%
International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%Visa Inc 7.51%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%Mastercard Inc 5.47%
Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%Bank of America Corp 4.91%
Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The 3.94%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61%Wells Fargo & Co 3.34%
Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61%Morgan Stanley 3.31%

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 XLF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
XLF
State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesState Street
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsFinancials
Total return, 1 year+9.4%+7.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts−9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.08%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%100.0%
Holdings6976

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.

XLF in plain words

XLF is an index equity fund tracking the Financials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 76 positions, with the top ten at 57.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or XLF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and XLF returned +7.6%, so NOBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or XLF?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and XLF charges 0.08%, so XLF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and XLF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 100% of XLF 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources