NOBL vs VTI
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, NOBL or VTI?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. NOBL led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NOBL is less concentrated, with 16.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 34.6%.
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 | NOBL | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $12.1B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.98% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 138 | 3,542 |
| YTD Return | +16.73%Best | +10.82% |
| 1Y Return | +20.03%Best | +11.60% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.67% | +20.95%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.89% | +10.57%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.3%Best | 14.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.4% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,954 | $16,527Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.7%Best | 34.6% |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 9, 2013 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 10, 2013 to Nov 10, 2026 (13.1 years).
NOBL vs VTI 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 13.1 years both funds cover.
NOBL vs VTI Performance
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) is an ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year NOBL returned +20.03% while VTI returned +11.60%. Year to date, NOBL is up 16.73% versus a gain of 10.82% for VTI.
Over three years, NOBL compounded at +13.67% per year against +20.95% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.89% and +10.57% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.26% annualized vs +9.60%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.8% compared with 14.3% for NOBL. 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 -35.4% for NOBL and -35.0% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NOBL charges 0.35% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $3 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NOBL currently yields 1.98% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
95.0% of NOBL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 9.3% of VTI's money is in holdings NOBL also owns.
Most of NOBL is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
66 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in NOBL and 3,464 in VTI, against full books of 138 and 3,542.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,063 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for NOBL (87.6% of the fund), and 2 for NOBL that do not appear in VTI (3.0%).
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 NOBL | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 1.64% | 0.92% | 0.72% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.41% | 0.87% | 0.54% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.59% | 0.63% | 0.96% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 1.66% | 0.52% | 1.14% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.55% | 0.62% | 0.93% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 1.62% | 0.45% | 1.17% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 1.51% | 0.46% | 1.05% |
| IBMIbm | 1.64% | 0.28% | 1.36% |
| BDXBecton Dickinson And Co. | 1.77% | 0.07% | 1.70% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.68% | 0.14% | 1.54% |
95.0% of NOBL is already inside VTI.
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, NOBL or VTI?
NOBL has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NOBL or VTI?
Over the past year NOBL returned +20.03% vs +11.60% for VTI, so NOBL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), NOBL annualized +9.60% vs +12.26% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NOBL or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 14.8% annualized versus 14.3% for NOBL. Worst drawdown: NOBL -35.4% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both NOBL and VTI?
NOBL and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between NOBL and VTI?
95.0% of NOBL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 9.3% of VTI's is in holdings NOBL also owns. They hold 66 positions in common, counted across the 68 positions we hold weights for in NOBL and 3,464 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, NOBL or VTI?
NOBL yields 1.98% while VTI yields 1.06%, so NOBL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than NOBL?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. NOBL led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. NOBL is less concentrated, with 16.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 34.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.