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

NOBL vs URTH: how they differ

NOBL and URTH hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and URTH returned more over the year.

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and iShares MSCI World ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and URTH hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and URTH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLURTH
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP1.56%0.76%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON1.51%0.71%
WALMART INC1.42%0.51%
ABBVIE INC1.47%0.50%
CHEVRON CORP1.61%0.43%
CATERPILLAR INC1.34%0.41%
COCA-COLA CO/THE1.56%0.38%
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO/THE1.42%0.37%
INTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP1.72%0.24%
LINDE PLC1.33%0.23%
PEPSICO INC1.46%0.21%
ABBOTT LABORATORIES1.47%0.20%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in URTH
ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A 1.69%NVIDIA 5.52%
FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC 1.54%APPLE 5.28%
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INC 1.51%MICROSOFT 3.82%
JM SMUCKER CO/THE 1.49%AMAZON.COM INC 2.67%
ALBEMARLE CORP 1.45%ALPHABET CLASS A 2.14%
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER INC 1.45%BROADCOM INC 1.79%
BROWN-FORMAN CORP-CLASS B 1.44%ALPHABET CLASS C 1.70%
SMITH (A.O.) CORP 1.40%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 1.56%

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 and URTH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesiShares
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsMSCI World
Total return, 1 year+9.4%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.24%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%70.3%
Holdings691230

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.

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. 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 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1230 positions, with the top ten at 26.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or URTH?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and URTH returned +17.4%, so URTH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or URTH?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and URTH charges 0.24%, so URTH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and URTH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 70% of URTH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% 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 URTH, 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, NOBL against URTH, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/nobl-vs-urth Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources