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 XLV: how they differ

NOBL and XLV hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and XLV returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and XLV hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and XLV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLXLV
AbbVie, Inc.1.56%7.76%
Johnson & Johnson1.47%10.67%
Abbott Laboratories1.36%2.76%
Cardinal Health, Inc.1.41%0.97%
Becton Dickinson & Co.1.38%0.73%
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.1.73%0.44%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in XLV
Nucor Corp. 1.77%Eli Lilly & Co 16.56%
International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%UnitedHealth Group Inc 6.59%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%Merck & Co Inc 5.54%
Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67%Amgen Inc 3.41%
Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 3.25%
Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%Gilead Sciences Inc 2.74%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61%Intuitive Surgical Inc 2.46%
Hormel Foods Corp. 1.61%Pfizer Inc 2.40%

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 XLV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
XLV
State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesState Street
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsHealth care
Total return, 1 year+9.4%+20.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts+2.9 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.08%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%100.0%
Holdings6959

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.

XLV in plain words

XLV is an index equity fund tracking the Health care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 59 positions, with the top ten at 61.7%. It sat 5.9% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or XLV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and XLV returned +20.4%, so XLV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or XLV?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so XLV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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 XLV, 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 XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources