Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AIRR vs NOBL: how they differ

Over the year AIRR returned more, +15.0% against +9.4%, and NOBL charges 0.35% against 0.69%.

First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AIRR and NOBL hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AIRROnly in NOBL
IES Holdings, Inc. 3.83%INTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.72%
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc 3.38%BECTON DICKINSON AND CO 1.69%
SPX Technologies 3.10%ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A 1.69%
BWX Technologies, Inc. 3.09%ROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC 1.68%
Owens Corning 3.03%TARGET CORP 1.64%
Nextpower Inc. (Class A) 2.89%CHEVRON CORP 1.61%
Saia, Inc. 2.83%GENUINE PARTS CO 1.61%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 2.77%MEDTRONIC PLC 1.61%

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 Sep 10, 2026 and Sep 11, 2026.

AIRR and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AIRR
First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsThematic ETFCore index fund
IssuerFirst TrustProShares
What it isReshoring and manufacturingS&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+15.0%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−2.5 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.69%0.35%
Already in the S&P 5005.5%100.0%
Holdings5869

AIRR in plain words

By weight, 6% of AIRR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 30% of the fund across 58 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +15.0% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 2.5 pts. It sits 19.5% below its all-time high of Jun 22, 2026.

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 Sep 11, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 69 positions, with the top ten at 16.5%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AIRR or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AIRR returned +15.0% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so AIRR returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AIRR or NOBL?
AIRR charges 0.69% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so NOBL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AIRR and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 6% of AIRR and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Are AIRR and NOBL the same kind of fund?
No. AIRR is a thematic ETF and NOBL is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

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.

AIRR against NOBL, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, AIRR against NOBL, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/airr-vs-nobl Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources