DGRO vs NOBL
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF vs ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Which is better, DGRO or NOBL?
Nearly the same fund. DGRO costs less.
DGRO has a lower expense ratio. DGRO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. NOBL is less concentrated, with 16.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 27.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $43.4B | $11.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.87% | 2.04% |
| Holdings | 397 | 69 |
| YTD Return | +13.11%Best | +8.18% |
| 1Y Return | +17.42%Best | +8.82% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.57%Best | +8.70% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.96%Best | +6.04% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.6%Best | 14.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.1%Best | -35.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,820Best | $13,408 |
| Top 10 Weight | 27.2% | 16.1%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | ProShares |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 10, 2014 | Oct 9, 2013 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 12, 2014 to Sep 11, 2026 (12.2 years).
DGRO vs NOBL growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 12.2 years both funds cover.
DGRO vs NOBL Performance
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) is an ETF from ProShares. Over the past year DGRO returned +17.42% while NOBL returned +8.82%. Year to date, DGRO is up 13.11% versus a gain of 8.18% for NOBL.
Over three years, DGRO compounded at +17.57% per year against +8.70% for NOBL; over five years the annualized figures are +10.96% and +6.04% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, DGRO has the edge at +11.00% annualized vs +8.61%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NOBL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.3% compared with 13.6% for DGRO. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -35.1% for DGRO and -35.4% for NOBL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DGRO charges 0.08% per year while NOBL charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $35 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DGRO currently yields 1.87% against 2.04% for NOBL.
Holdings Overlap
29.0% of DGRO's money is in holdings NOBL also owns. 76.9% of NOBL's money is in holdings DGRO also owns.
Most of NOBL is already inside DGRO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
53 positions in common, counted across the 391 positions we hold weights for in DGRO and 69 in NOBL, against full books of 397 and 69.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for NOBL that do not appear in our book for DGRO (21.5% of the fund), and 326 for DGRO that do not appear in NOBL (70.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in DGRO | Weight in NOBL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 3.03% | 1.41% | 1.62% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.86% | 1.36% | 1.50% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 2.76% | 1.37% | 1.39% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 2.17% | 1.38% | 0.79% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 1.92% | 1.48% | 0.44% |
| PEPPepsico Inc. | 1.63% | 1.43% | 0.20% |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corp. | 1.12% | 1.60% | 0.48% |
| MCDMcdonald'S Corp | 1.10% | 1.45% | 0.35% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 1.08% | 1.47% | 0.39% |
| NEENextera Energy Inc. | 1.12% | 1.34% | 0.22% |
76.9% of NOBL is already inside DGRO.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, DGRO or NOBL?
DGRO has an expense ratio of 0.08% while NOBL charges 0.35%. DGRO is the cheaper option, by $27 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DGRO or NOBL?
Over the past year DGRO returned +17.42% vs +8.82% for NOBL, so DGRO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), DGRO annualized +11.00% vs +8.61% for NOBL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DGRO or NOBL?
NOBL has been the more volatile fund at 14.3% annualized versus 13.6% for DGRO. Worst drawdown: DGRO -35.1% vs NOBL -35.4%.
Should I hold both DGRO and NOBL?
DGRO and NOBL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between DGRO and NOBL?
76.9% of NOBL's money is in holdings DGRO also owns. 76.9% of NOBL's is in holdings DGRO also owns. They hold 53 positions in common, counted across the 391 positions we hold weights for in DGRO and 69 in NOBL.
Which pays a higher dividend, DGRO or NOBL?
DGRO yields 1.87% while NOBL yields 2.04%, so NOBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NOBL better than DGRO?
DGRO has a lower expense ratio. DGRO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. NOBL is less concentrated, with 16.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 27.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.