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

IXUS vs NOBL: how they differ

IXUS and NOBL hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IXUS returned more over the year.

iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IXUS and NOBL hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IXUS and NOBL both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIXUSNOBL
ROCHE PS PAR AG0.70%1.68%
ADMIRAL GROUP PLC0.03%1.44%
AEROPORTS DE PARIS SA0.01%1.60%
BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK0.01%1.51%
BUDIMEX SA0.01%1.69%
EMERALD RESOURCES0.01%1.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IXUSOnly in NOBL
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 4.49%INTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.72%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.21%ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A 1.69%
SK HYNIX 1.79%TARGET CORP 1.64%
ASML HOLDING 1.55%CHEVRON CORP 1.61%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.84%GENUINE PARTS CO 1.61%
TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.78%MEDTRONIC PLC 1.61%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.68%NUCOR CORP 1.60%
SHELL PLC 0.62%EXPEDITORS INTL WASH INC 1.58%

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.

IXUS and NOBL on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IXUS
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesProShares
What it isCore MSCI Total International StockS&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats
Total return, 1 year+22.2%+9.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.7 pts−8.1 pts
Expense ratio0.07%0.35%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%100.0%
Holdings254069

IXUS in plain words

IXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2540 positions, with the top ten at 14.3%.

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, IXUS or NOBL?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IXUS returned +22.2% and NOBL returned +9.4%, so IXUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IXUS or NOBL?
IXUS charges 0.07% a year and NOBL charges 0.35%, so IXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IXUS and NOBL overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IXUS and 100% of NOBL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources