Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
NOBL vs QUAL: how they differ
NOBL and QUAL hold 13% of their weight in the same names, and QUAL returned more over the year.
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and QUAL hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | NOBL | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.56% | 2.35% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.51% | 2.17% |
| AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING | 1.60% | 1.20% |
| LINDE PLC | 1.33% | 0.99% |
| WALMART INC | 1.42% | 0.95% |
| COCA-COLA CO/THE | 1.56% | 0.82% |
| PROCTER & GAMBLE CO/THE | 1.42% | 0.82% |
| ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS | 1.42% | 0.72% |
| CINTAS CORP | 1.45% | 0.63% |
| FASTENAL CO | 1.58% | 0.53% |
| WW GRAINGER INC | 1.37% | 0.51% |
| CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC | 1.38% | 0.48% |
| Only in NOBL | Only in QUAL |
|---|---|
| INTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.72% | MICROSOFT 7.67% |
| BECTON DICKINSON AND CO 1.69% | APPLE 7.10% |
| ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A 1.69% | NVIDIA 6.44% |
| ROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC 1.68% | META PLATFORMS CLASS A 4.32% |
| TARGET CORP 1.64% | ELI LILLY 3.62% |
| CHEVRON CORP 1.61% | LAM RESEARCH 3.59% |
| GENUINE PARTS CO 1.61% | TJX 3.23% |
| MEDTRONIC PLC 1.61% | VISA CLASS A 3.21% |
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.
| NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF | QUAL iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | ProShares | iShares |
| What it is | S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats | MSCI USA Quality Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +9.4% | +16.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −8.1 pts | −1.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 100.0% | 98.9% |
| Holdings | 69 | 121 |
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.
QUAL in plain words
QUAL is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Quality Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 121 positions, with the top ten at 44.4%. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or QUAL?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and QUAL returned +16.0%, so QUAL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, NOBL or QUAL?
- NOBL charges 0.35% a year and QUAL charges 0.15%, so QUAL is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do NOBL and QUAL overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 99% of QUAL by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 13% 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 QUAL, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/nobl-vs-qual Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources