DGRO vs NOBL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DGRO and NOBL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DGRO is iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF, while NOBL is ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. DGRO is broader by holdings count, with 395 positions versus 70 for NOBL. DGRO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DGRO ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 60.
What is the main difference between DGRO and NOBL?
DGRO holds 395 positions to NOBL's 70, and 23% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 395 | 70 |
| Top-10 concentration | 27.6% | 16.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.88% | 2.04% |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 1,093,180 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.4% | +13.3% |
| YTD return | +14.2% | +10.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.9% | +6.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.3% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 1.34 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 80/100 | 80/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF vs ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
DGRO leads
DGRO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DGRO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DGRO over NOBL, 63 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. DGRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. DGRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DGRO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF and ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DGRO vs NOBL: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | DGRO | NOBL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | DGRO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 395 | 70 | DGRO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 27.6% | 16.4% | NOBL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.88% | 2.04% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.3% | -17.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 9.6% | 11.9% | DGRO |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare DGRO and NOBL against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience78 vs 72DGRO +6
- Quality63 vs 59DGRO +4
- Value42 vs 40Even
- Momentum80 vs 80Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DGRO. DGRO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (3.0%)
DGRO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGRO and NOBL both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | DGRO | NOBL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 395 | 70 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,422,259 | 1,093,180 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.71 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.27 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
DGRO and NOBL share 23.48% of their weighted exposure across 53 common holdings.
337 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 16 holdings are unique to NOBL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
DGRO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 27.58% of the fund, against 16.45% for NOBL (395 holdings vs 70). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | DGRO | NOBL | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| KOCOCA-COLA | 1.97% | 1.56% | 1.56% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 3.04% | 1.56% | 1.56% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.2% | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| ABBVABBVIE | 2.96% | 1.48% | 1.48% |
| PEPPEPSICO | 1.63% | 1.46% | 1.46% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 2.15% | 1.42% | 1.42% |
| IBMINTL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP | 1.17% | 1.72% | 1.17% |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 1.1% | 1.47% | 1.1% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DGRO adds that NOBL doesn’t
| Holding | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 3.44% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.2% | 1.51% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 3.2% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 2.93% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.4% | Not held |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 2.17% | Not held |
What NOBL adds that DGRO doesn’t
| Holding | NOBL | DGRO |
|---|---|---|
| ERIEERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY-CL A | 1.69% | 0.04% |
| BDXABECTON DICKINSON AND CO | 1.69% | 0.3% |
| ROPROPER TECHNOLOGIES INC | 1.68% | 0.09% |
| TGTTARGET CORP | 1.64% | Not held |
| GPCGENUINE PARTS CO | 1.61% | 0.18% |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 1.61% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
DGRO vs NOBL: five-year payout growth
DGRO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.09% a year against NOBL's 5.45%. DGRO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; NOBL did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.09% | 5.45% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.030 | $0.853 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.451 | $1.113 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #11 of 33 | #16 of 33 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DGRO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 63 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 40 |
| Technicals | DGRO | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 6% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | DGRO | Risk Resilience 78 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DGRO and NOBL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on DGRO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DGRO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DGRO +3
- 63 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- DGRO +3
- 63 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- DGRO +4
- 52 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- DGRO +5
- 60 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 26 when DGRO moved ahead of NOBL.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NOBL
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 9 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DGRO leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.03%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1NOBL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to DGRO's edge.
- 2NOBL's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3DGRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
DGRO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | 3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | 1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 6.2% |
| Year to date | 14.2% | 10.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.4% | 13.3% |
Technicals
DGRO has the stronger structure| Metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.7 | 75.4 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.7% | 12.2% |
Risk
DGRO is the more resilient| Metric | DGRO | NOBL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.26 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -6.9% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 9.6% | 11.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between DGRO and NOBL?
DGRO holds 395 positions to NOBL's 70, and 23% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DGRO and NOBL overlap?
DGRO and NOBL share 23.48% of their weighted exposure across 53 common holdings. 337 holdings are unique to DGRO, and 16 holdings are unique to NOBL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DGRO or NOBL?
DGRO holds more positions: 395 versus 70 for NOBL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DGRO has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.35% for NOBL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.88% for DGRO and 2.04% for NOBL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
NOBL has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.9% annualized against 9.6% for DGRO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -19.3% for DGRO and -17.9% for NOBL.
Compare DGRO and NOBL with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.