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 VLUE: how they differ

NOBL and VLUE hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and VLUE returned more over the year.

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and VLUE hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and VLUE both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLVLUE
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO1.44%1.02%
TARGET CORP1.64%0.83%
BECTON DICKINSON AND CO1.69%0.36%
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC1.68%0.34%
REALTY INCOME CORP1.33%0.30%
NUCOR CORP1.60%0.27%
CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC1.38%0.23%
EVERSOURCE ENERGY1.34%0.20%
AMCOR PLC1.42%0.12%
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC1.35%0.07%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in VLUE
INTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 1.72%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 21.65%
ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A 1.69%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.14%
CHEVRON CORP 1.61%GENERAL MOTORS 3.72%
GENUINE PARTS CO 1.61%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 3.05%
MEDTRONIC PLC 1.61%AT&T 2.69%
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING 1.60%BANK OF AMERICA 2.15%
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO 1.58%FORD MOTOR CO 1.94%
EXPEDITORS INTL WASH INC 1.58%COMCAST CLASS A 1.79%

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 VLUE on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
VLUE
iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesiShares
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsMSCI USA Value Factor
Total return, 1 year+9.4%+69.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts+51.9 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.15%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%96.9%
Holdings69148

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.

VLUE in plain words

VLUE is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Value Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +69.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 148 positions, with the top ten at 44.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or VLUE?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and VLUE returned +69.4%, so VLUE returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or VLUE?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and VLUE charges 0.15%, so VLUE is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and VLUE overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 97% of VLUE by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 VLUE, 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 VLUE, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/nobl-vs-vlue Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources