Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs XLG: how they differ
NOBL and XLG hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and XLG returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and XLG hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| Johnson & Johnson | 1.47% | 1.50% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp. | 1.44% | 1.74% |
| Walmart, Inc. | 1.31% | 1.56% |
| Caterpillar, Inc. | 1.61% | 1.12% |
| AbbVie, Inc. | 1.56% | 1.01% |
| Chevron Corp. | 1.44% | 0.98% |
| Procter & Gamble Co. (The) | 1.48% | 0.92% |
| Coca-Cola Co. (The) | 1.55% | 0.82% |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | 1.37% | 0.58% |
| International Business Machines Corp. | 1.71% | 0.58% |
| McDonald's Corp. | 1.36% | 0.56% |
| Abbott Laboratories | 1.36% | 0.43% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in XLG |
|---|---|
| Nucor Corp. 1.77% | NVIDIA Corp. 13.10% |
| West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73% | Apple Inc. 10.76% |
| Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68% | Microsoft Corp. 8.18% |
| Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67% | Amazon.com, Inc. 6.99% |
| Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62% | Alphabet Inc. 6.05% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61% | Broadcom Inc. 4.85% |
| Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61% | Alphabet Inc. 4.82% |
| JM Smucker Co. (The) 1.58% | Meta Platforms, Inc. 3.61% |
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 | XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | Invesco |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | S&P 500 top 50 |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +12.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | −5.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 69 | 51 |
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.
XLG in plain words
XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 51 positions, with the top ten at 63.6%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or XLG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and XLG returned +12.2%, so XLG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or XLG?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so XLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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 XLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-XLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources