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

DGRO vs NOBL: how they differ

DGRO and NOBL hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and DGRO returned more over the year.

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DGRO and NOBL hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DGRO and NOBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDGRONOBL
COCA-COLA1.98%1.56%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP3.07%1.56%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON3.20%1.51%
ABBVIE3.02%1.47%
PEPSICO1.64%1.46%
PROCTER & GAMBLE2.16%1.42%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES1.14%1.72%
NEXTERA ENERGY1.10%1.34%
ABBOTT LABORATORIES1.08%1.47%
MCDONALDS CORP1.04%1.39%
MEDTRONIC PLC0.89%1.61%
WALMART INC0.83%1.42%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DGROOnly in NOBL
MICROSOFT 3.45%TARGET CORP 1.64%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.20%CHEVRON CORP 1.61%
APPLE 3.04%FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INC 1.51%
BROADCOM INC 2.38%JM SMUCKER CO/THE 1.49%
MERCK & CO INC 2.14%ALBEMARLE CORP 1.45%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 2.13%STANLEY BLACK & DECKER INC 1.45%
HOME DEPOT 1.98%BROWN-FORMAN CORP-CLASS B 1.44%
BANK OF AMERICA 1.86%AMCOR PLC 1.42%

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.

DGRO and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DGRO
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesProShares
What it isCore Dividend GrowthS&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+17.4%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50094.7%100.0%
Holdings38769

DGRO in plain words

DGRO is an index equity fund tracking the Core Dividend Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% 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 Sep 10, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

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, DGRO or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DGRO returned +17.4% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so DGRO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DGRO or NOBL?
DGRO charges 0.08% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so DGRO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DGRO and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of DGRO and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources